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:

[One]

No, it seems that verification was not formalized before. FT2 brought this up in October, and the requirement was added in:

There is a good chance that any person wishing to sit for Arbcom may need to identify to WMF. Of course the majority of Arbitrators do, but at present it is not a requirement that a user will do so. I think this is unavoidable, and worth raising prior to nominations. I've raised it on arbcom-l also.
... FT2 (Talk | email) 16:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess Sam was just grandfathered in.

Incidentally, is this really important? I don't think there was a reason to out NYB, for example. On the other hand, I guess Sam is different because even the Foundation doesn't know. With his non-privileges he might be able to...learn something private on the Arb list, maybe.

I dunno. I'm just tired of outing.

[Eva Destruction]

FWIW, English phone books aren't a reliable source for proving the existence/nonexistence of people; under UK law anyone can opt out of the public versions of both the phone directory and the electoral roll (you have Geri Halliwell, of all people, to thank for setting the legal precedent for this), and between 30-50% of people take advantage of this; in addition, mobile phone and 3G web access costs are so cheap (comparatively) that a lot of people don't have a landline at all.

[tarantino]

I dunno. I'm just tired of outing.

How is this outing? He signed his emails to the public wikien-l "Sam Blacketer London E15". E15 is the postcode district for Stratford.

I suspect most people assume it's his real name. If it's a pseudonym, as he sort of alludes to here, it should be made clear.


Don't you find it slightly intriguing that he shows up in Dec 2006, makes over a thousand edits in his first ten days, and a year later he's an elite member?

He has access to confidential information on the arbcom wiki and mailng list. He should be verified.

[Knight]

I don't think that http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Identification_noticeboard is an exhaustive list of people who've identified to the WMF. Take for example this user who it would seem has identified but is not listed on the ID noticeboard. Perhaps someone should ask Sam on his talkpage to clarify whether he has identified given that this is now a requirement for ArbCom candidates?

[One]

I don't think that http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Identification_noticeboard is an exhaustive list of people who've identified to the WMF. Take for example this user who it would seem has identified but is not listed on the ID noticeboard. Perhaps someone should ask Sam on his talkpage to clarify whether he has identified given that this is now a requirement for ArbCom candidates?

If he were some random steward, I would agree. But I don't think it's coincidence that he's the only one night identified and the only one without tools. FT2 was clearly talking about someone. I think tarantino has made a good conclusion here.

But, I guess someone can ask.

Tarantino: I don't assume people use their real names. "Blacketer" is a fairly uncommon name, and I think it is a pseudonym.

[Alex]

It does seem a little strange that in December 2006 he was completely new, and less than a year later he was an Arbitrator. I may have expected such a thing in 2003, but not 2007. Seems he pushed all the right buttons.

It is interesting how checkuser/oversight rights are handed out to Arbitrators. For example, Charles Matthews and Sam are the only ones without CheckUser, and FayssalF and Sam are the only ones without Oversight (I think). Surely if one has access to CheckUser, one should have access to oversight as well? Especially as an Arbitrator. Makes no sense.

And Sam Blacketer almost certainly is a pseudonym.

[tarantino]

And Sam Blacketer almost certainly is a pseudonym.

As mentioned in this thread here. the pseudonymous Sam Blacketer attacked Greg by name on wikien-l. Only Alex rightly called him on it.

On Nov 24, 2007 4:22 PM, Majorly <xxxxx at googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 24/11/2007, Sam Blacketer <xxxxx at googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I hope Greg Kohs is as sick as a parrot.
> <http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>
> Why would you say something like that?
>

Because it shows the utter pointlessness of Wikipedia Review, an attempt for him to
make money by writing supportive articles on his clients. As the header
says, "get paid to edit ethically" and that means that both the payments and
the edits are ethical, as opposed to Wikipedia Review when they were neither.

--
Sam Blacketer
London E15

So we have a UK Wikipedian, with what can be construed as a misleading identity, that is well-versed in the MMORPG and exhibits antipathy towards Greg. Why does this sound familiar?

[Proabivouac]

Incidentally, is this really important? I don't think there was a reason to out NYB, for example.

There's no way to know if it's important until after it's done. If Newyorkbrad had turned out to be, say, a twenty-two year old fantasist in Nebraska who was falsely claiming to be a Manhattan litigation attorney, then it would have been important. I'd say that learning that he is exactly who he said he was was also important, in that it built confidence.

Likewise with Sam Blacketer. Suppose he turns out to be an agent of the British government? Or a international currency manipulator? Etc. Has anyone scrutinized his edits for a possible conflict of interest, and without knowing who he is, would we even know what to look for?

A failure to proactively vet candidates is what allows "Essjays" and "Poetlisters" to slip by. Assuming that there isn't a problem without having checked is bad management. Before we say, "How could we have let this happen again?" let's be clear: we are very actively letting it happen again when we attempt to pressure people like Tarantino out of investigating.

Truth is not the enemy.

[Proabivouac]

Perhaps someone should ask Sam on his talkpage to clarify whether he has identified given that this is now a requirement for ArbCom candidates?

Even if he identified himself to the Foundation, what good would that be? Remember, they certified Essjay - do you think they're going to tell us about whatever problems they find?

Cary Bass also certified MB's "Cato" sockpuppet:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/?diff=924059&diffonly=yes

I asked him about it, but Arbitrator FT2 blanked my question, to which Mr. Bass never responded.

"Mr. Bass states above that "…this has demonstrated that our process does, in fact, work." If this is success, what would count as failure? What steps did Mr. Bass take to verify Cato's identity? Was the information given accurate?"
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...v&oldid=1199214

The record suggests that trusting the Foundation to exercise due diligence is a mistake. Any credible vetting will have to come from us.

[Moulton]

The record suggests that trusting the Foundation to exercise due diligence is a mistake. Any credible vetting will have to come from us.

The record is unmistakably clear. Cary and Jimbo can be counted on to behave atrociously and to protect their admins who similarly behave atrociously. Woe to anyone who calls them on their appalling lack of ethics.

[tarantino]

And Sam Blacketer almost certainly is a pseudonym.

As mentioned in this thread here. the pseudonymous Sam Blacketer attacked Greg by name on wikien-l. Only Alex rightly called him on it.

On Nov 24, 2007 4:22 PM, Majorly <xxxxx at googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 24/11/2007, Sam Blacketer <xxxxx at googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I hope Greg Kohs is as sick as a parrot.
> <http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>
> Why would you say something like that?
>

Because it shows the utter pointlessness of Wikipedia Review, an attempt for him to
make money by writing supportive articles on his clients. As the header
says, "get paid to edit ethically" and that means that both the payments and
the edits are ethical, as opposed to Wikipedia Review when they were neither.

--
Sam Blacketer
London E15

I revisited this a few days ago, and I've figured out who Sam is. If Jimmy and the voters had known what his older account was, he probably wouldn't be an arb today.

You played a great round of Wikipedia this time, Sam.

[Alex]

I revisited this a few days ago, and I've figured out who Sam is. If Jimmy and the voters had known what his older account was, he probably wouldn't be an arb today.

You played a great round of Wikipedia this time, Sam.

Care to reveal who you figured him to be?

[Milton Roe]

I revisited this a few days ago, and I've figured out who Sam is. If Jimmy and the voters had known what his older account was, he probably wouldn't be an arb today.

You played a great round of Wikipedia this time, Sam.

The real Paul Sinclair? David Gerard? Some guy in London named Baxter?

[The Joy]

Should we call a spade a spade? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Or am I way off base? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

[tarantino]

Should we call a spade a spade? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Or am I way off base? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Good guesses all, but no.

I'll give Sam a chance to respond here or there. He seems to be mostly harmless now.

[thekohser]

I dunno. I'm just tired of outing.

I'm tired of people using tax-deductible dollar funded website resources to say things like "I hope Greg Kohs is sick as a parrot", without themselves being identified publicly.

[Kato]

I dunno. I'm just tired of outing.

I'm tired of people using tax-deductible dollar funded website resources to say things like "I hope Greg Kohs is sick as a parrot", without themselves being identified publicly.

"Sick as a parrot" is a lighthearted sports cliche meaning pissed off, or disappointed. "I can't believe Ronaldo missed the goal with that shot, he must be sick as a parrot about it" etc. It might be lost in translation and I wouldn't take that phrase too seriously.

I'd be more annoyed that a prominent supporter of Wikipedia, where ethics are so low it has seen innocent people detained at airports, has described Wikipedia Review as having "no ethics".

[One]

I'd be more annoyed that a prominent supporter of Wikipedia, where ethics are so low it has seen innocent people detained at airports, has described Wikipedia Review as having "no ethics".

You hit that one out of the park.

This post has been edited by One:

[Lar]

I'd be more annoyed that a prominent supporter of Wikipedia, where ethics are so low it has seen innocent people detained at airports, has described Wikipedia Review as having "no ethics".

You hit that one out of the park.

(for the non USians among us That's a sports cliche from US baseball and it means "extremely well done" or "remarkably apt")

I agree.

[zvook]

(for the non USians among us That's a sports cliche from US baseball and it means "extremely well done" or "remarkably apt")

Heh. Of course due to aggressive cultural imperialism, complimented by a certain cultural insularity, corporate-enforced and general, the idiom ignorance tends to be uni-directional.

[Random832]

Incidentally, is this really important?

His name is one thing - people are always going to disagree on that here - but I think that if he previously had a different username notorious enough for someone to reasonably make a statement like "If Jimmy and the voters had known what his older account was, he probably wouldn't be an arb today.", it's worth knowing that.

Cary Bass also certified MB's "Cato" sockpuppet:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/?diff=924059&diffonly=yes

We don't actually know he didn't identify himself as MB - none of the other ones were ever certified identified, so Cary wouldn't have necessarily been reasonably expected to see a problem.

[Shalom]

Tarantino: It must have taken you at least an hour of research to track down Sam Blacketer's old userid.

What's the point of going to all that trouble if you won't spill the beans and start a massive drama? I'm curious as hell. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Alex]

He's now identified. Not that that means much though.

[trenton]

it's kinda funny looking at that page. What kind of job is it to follow Cary Bass around and fix his edits? How long will it take before Cary Bass realizes how to add people and edit the page correctly?

Well I guess it's a small miracle that Cary Bass at least manages to put them in alphabetical order.

[the fieryangel]

He's now identified. Not that that means much though.

Anybody who's on Arbcom who hasn't publicly id'ed themselves is probably hiding something. Does anybody doubt that people are editing WP to push the POVs of outside entities?

That one or more these types has gotten elected to arbcom should be no surprise, especially when pseudos are the norm.

The solutions? Simple: requiring people in positions of trust to disclose identities and conflicts of interest. This isn't rocket science, folks.

I'll be very surprised if only one of the non-ided arbs has a hidden agenda....

He's now identified. Not that that means much though.

If the WMF foundation thinks that saying "we know who this is" is going to solve this problem, they're hopelessly naïve...

[CrazyGameOfPoker]

it's kinda funny looking at that page. What kind of job is it to follow Cary Bass around and fix his edits? How long will it take before Cary Bass realizes how to add people and edit the page correctly?

Well I guess it's a small miracle that Cary Bass at least manages to put them in alphabetical order.

Nearly impossible given that the data the guy keeps adding is a diff link that's only generated after Cary adds the name. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[MZMcBride]

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?

Er, you lost me. Thirteen? There are 16 current Arbs....

[CrazyGameOfPoker]

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?

Er, you lost me. Thirteen? There are 16 current Arbs....

Uh...check the date

[MZMcBride]

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?

Er, you lost me. Thirteen? There are 16 current Arbs....

Uh...check the date

Oh, bah. Is it really so hard to start a new topic? When these things span months and have long gaps, I always get confused. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) Thanks for the clarification.

[Random832]

Nearly impossible given that the data the guy keeps adding is a diff link that's only generated after Cary adds the name. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

I've complained about the inability to generate this sort of link at edit time before.

[trenton]

it's kinda funny looking at that page. What kind of job is it to follow Cary Bass around and fix his edits? How long will it take before Cary Bass realizes how to add people and edit the page correctly?

Well I guess it's a small miracle that Cary Bass at least manages to put them in alphabetical order.

Nearly impossible given that the data the guy keeps adding is a diff link that's only generated after Cary adds the name. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

I know, which is why I said add and edit.... but still the guy has his little helpers following him around. Teach a guy to fish and all that....

I've complained about the inability to generate this sort of link at edit time before.

There are some things a wiki is not suited for and this may be one of them.

[CharlotteWebb]

So we have a UK Wikipedian, with what can be construed as a misleading identity, that is well-versed in the MMORPG and exhibits antipathy towards Greg. Why does this sound familiar?

You can add "interested in Wikiquote" to this list if the old account as what I think.

[tarantino]

Resignation

Some months ago I decided to resign from the committee and return to article editing, notifying the committee privately on 20 February. That resignation now takes effect. Before joining the committee I had used the account Fys for editing which should have been disclosed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This post has been edited by tarantino:

[CharlotteWebb]

So we have a UK Wikipedian, with what can be construed as a misleading identity, that is well-versed in the MMORPG and exhibits antipathy towards Greg. Why does this sound familiar?

You can add "interested in Wikiquote" to this list if the old account as what I think.

So I was right:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User:Fys

[RMHED]

So we have a UK Wikipedian, with what can be construed as a misleading identity, that is well-versed in the MMORPG and exhibits antipathy towards Greg. Why does this sound familiar?

You can add "interested in Wikiquote" to this list if the old account as what I think.

So I was right:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User:Fys

Probably called David, likely works for Westminster City Council went to St Catharine's College, Cambridge in the early 90's.

[CharlotteWebb]

Wonder if anyone is concerned that Sam, er... Dave, er... Soul Man is an admin despite being previously desysopped by arbcom in August 2006.

[RMHED]

Is this Sam?

[zvook]

Is this Sam?

Seems to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=73364587

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=73019657

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...age=User%3ADbiv

Edit:corrected duplicated url

This post has been edited by zvook:

[CharlotteWebb]

*01:14, 15 February 2006 Fys (talk | contribs) unblocked "Dbiv (talk | contribs)" ‎ (Yes, I know I am not supposed to do this. Justification 1: Block was wrongly applied. Justification 2: I have a major edit which I am not going to lose come what may. WP:IAR applies)

Entries like this become confusing when a user is renamed. The subject of the above sentence is stored as a number (his user id 55217) but the direct object is stored as text (log_title == "Dbiv" && log_namespace == "2"). This is the name of the target page/user at the time the action was taken.

One part of the data reflects the name change, as viewing the log looks up the new name based on the user_id number which remains the same, but old data is used for second part.

In effect it becomes less obvious that he unblocked himself, which is usually considered the highest form of admin abuse. This is inherently more serious than whatever was done to warrant the block, whether it was justified or not.

[Somey]

Seems to be.

Okay, so... Someone, possibly Mr. Boothroyd himself, created the article on him as an AnonIP, and two weeks later, User:Fys - i.e., Boothroyd - tried to have it deleted, and the attempt failed. The original talk page for the article was deleted in April 2007, presumably because it compromised either Fys (T-C-L-K-R-D) or David Boothroyd (T-C-L-K-R-D) ... or both.

There's almost no way this guy should be "notable" enough for an article, even by Wikipedia's ridiculously low standards. I think we can assume that he'll start a new WP user account and try again as an editor/admin/whatever, for whatever purpose(s), but... do we know if he still wants the BLP article deleted? Has he said anything recently, one way or another?

[cyofee]

Good work, tarantino.

There's an Indian saying along the lines of "You'll recognize the truth because it's unpleasent".

This affair shows how skilled and motivated people can and do manipulate and game Wikipedia's systems of checks and balances. If I ever have a year to waste, I think I'll go for Arbcom membership myself. It'd be like playing World of Warcraft, only better, because my success would have real-world consequences.

This post has been edited by cyofee:

[MBisanz]

...do we know if he still wants the BLP article deleted? Has he said anything recently, one way or another?

After a two year hiatus, the answer is: Yes

[RMHED]

...do we know if he still wants the BLP article deleted? Has he said anything recently, one way or another?

After a two year hiatus, the answer is: Yes

Speedy deleted by Jehochman, yet it didn't meet the speedy criteria. Now I wonder why it got this special treatment?

Archived

This post has been edited by RMHED:

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=73364587

Is that first link a typo, or has the revision been vanished?

[MBisanz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=73364587

Is that first link a typo, or has the revision been vanished?

The page was deleted, so a diff based link like that will no longer work. I don't know what you mean by "vanished", but I don't think that would qualify as vanishing.

[CharlotteWebb]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=73364587

Is that first link a typo, or has the revision been vanished?

The article has just been deleted.

[RMHED]

Yes lucky old David Boothroyd AKA as Wikipedia User Sam Blacketer, User Fys, User Dbiv and User David Boothroyd, was having his privacy protected by his chums.

Now if only other marginal BLP's could be so well cared for.

This post has been edited by RMHED:

[zvook]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=73364587

Is that first link a typo, or has the revision been vanished?

The page was deleted, so a diff based link like that will no longer work. I don't know what you mean by "vanished", but I don't think that would qualify as vanishing.

Yep, it was just a link to the DB account editing the DB article and referring to itself as the subject in the edit summary.

[One]

Yes lucky old David Boothroyd AKA as Wikipedia User Sam Blacketer, User Fys, User Dbiv and User David Boothroyd, was having his privacy protected by his chums.

Now if only other marginal BLP's could be so well cared for.

They sort of are: BLPs can be deleted if the subjects ask for the dramatic force of the site on them. The problem is that they have to raise their profile to do this. It would be better if these were routine. We'll be lucky if no one DRVs this biography.

[Milton Roe]

Yes lucky old David Boothroyd AKA as Wikipedia User Sam Blacketer, User Fys, User Dbiv and User David Boothroyd, was having his privacy protected by his chums.

Now if only other marginal BLP's could be so well cared for.

When is somebody going to mention on WP that having a BLP up on WP AND using your own name as username, doesn't allow you to use 3 other accounts, at least one of them a sock at the same time? For example: User:Fys doesn't exactly say "Unblocking user:Dbiv (my alternatve account)", now does he? That would be an edit dif comment we'd like to see.

As with the Weiss/Mantanmoreland case we're about to see much gaming of the system, carried on under the idea that is was necessary to protect the editor's privacy. And of course this will be used as a weapon against all anti-gamers. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

Yes lucky old David Boothroyd AKA as Wikipedia User Sam Blacketer, User Fys, User Dbiv and User David Boothroyd, was having his privacy protected by his chums.

Now if only other marginal BLP's could be so well cared for.

They sort of are: BLPs can be deleted if the subjects ask for the dramatic force of the site on them.

Meaning what?

The problem is that they have to raise their profile to do this. It would be better if these were routine.

There's an understatement. It would be nice with wikiadmins had to put up with the same BLP crap that everyone does. But of course they don't. If they later become admins, then they game the system and maybe get a BLP deleted without anybody making the connection. Or not. If they get outed at WR first, well, then they get what they want, but not in the way they wanted it.

[tarantino]

IIRC Dominic edited the bio around the same time that Sam says he informed his colleagues of his intentions to retire. Admins may want to confirm that.

[MBisanz]

IIRC Dominic edited the bio around the same time that Sam says he informed his colleagues of his intentions to retire. Admins may want to confirm that.

That would mean something if Dominic was still on the arb-l mailing list, but seeing as he was removed before then with all the other functionaries, I don't think it does. And in the same period, Dominic was editing several sex-related articles as part of an AFD series, so again, I don't see an explicit connection.

Also, Dominic was the arb who first proposed desysopping Dbiv , so I cannot imagine him all of a sudden deciding to help the fellow out under the table.

[Alex]

Wow... is all I can say. He sure fooled us. Thankfully he has stepped down.

[MBisanz]

For example: User:Fys doesn't exactly say "Unblocking user:Dbiv (my alternatve account)", now does he? That would be an edit dif comment we'd like to see.

Milton, you missed both Charlotte's comment above and mine at WT:AC/N. Dbiv was renamed to Fys. But MediaWiki only renamed the first half of the block log (it was an error that was just fixed in 2009. So at the time, it read Dbiv unblocked User:Dbiv, but when it was renamed, it became Fys unblocked User:Dbiv. At the time it would have been (and at the related RFAR was) crystal clear what had occurred.

[trenton]

Ha. Like this kangaroo court needed any more credibility problems. Although Mr Blacketer's meteoric rise from lowly peon to mighty arbonaught in less than two years should prove instructive on how to game the system. It seems that Mr Blacketer learned his lesson well with his first account.

[Kevin]

Wow... is all I can say. He sure fooled us. Thankfully he has stepped down.

I wonder what other dark secrets are lurking about the place.

[Alex]

Wow... is all I can say. He sure fooled us. Thankfully he has stepped down.

I wonder what other dark secrets are lurking about the place.

I asked whether any other Arbitrators are reincarnations. As it happens, I doubt any are, but you never know. Of course, there are probably numerous admins who are reincarnations. That doesn't bother me so much as this.

[Milton Roe]

For example: User:Fys doesn't exactly say "Unblocking user:Dbiv (my alternatve account)", now does he? That would be an edit dif comment we'd like to see.

Milton, you missed both Charlotte's comment above and mine at WT:AC/N. Dbiv was renamed to Fys. But MediaWiki only renamed the first half of the block log (it was an error that was just fixed in 2009. So at the time, it read Dbiv unblocked User:Dbiv, but when it was renamed, it became Fys unblocked User:Dbiv. At the time it would have been (and at the related RFAR was) crystal clear what had occurred.

Okay, I have to retract the sock comment (although having this coverred up by software screwups later is way convenient). I see that the "I'm not supposed to do this" relates to the unblocking himself. His reasoning is all-the-more precious: "Yes, I know I am not supposed to do this. Justification 1: Block was wrongly applied. Justification 2: I have a major edit which I am not going to lose come what may. WP:IAR applies."

Hey, I want WP:IAR to apply to me!


We've got your basic campaign bio-massager for Brit labour MPs, who sticks his own bio up on Wikipedia, then spends all his time writting canned political bios and posting them on WP. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) With a weeee bit more attension to Labourites. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Okay, so this is working, until he starts to rise in the ranks. He tries to get his own BLP deleted and is no more successful than anybody else usually is at this (extracting your own BLP off WP is ordinarily much like extracting teeth). He dares not make a stink about it, but progresses through a series of alternatve names. Soon, due to software screwups, there's hardly any trace of the old him at all. And now, he's way up to arbitrator! Who knows how long before he'll be arbitrating cases involving politicians' BLPs in the UK. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

But, so sorry, he got outted on WR (you couldn't do that on WP, no matter how corrupt it was) and his real name and BLP name is known. So then (fancy that) Jehochman immediately NOW deletes his BLP for being non-notable. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) Nobody had noticed that it was non-notable before, even during its first RfD. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/pinch.gif)

And yes, there was some overly private information in it, perhaps. All of it added by the subject. Who was now in a position of not being able to remove it, without notice.

WP: you're totally corrupt. You're full of people who cannot stand your own rules to apply to themselves. And full of other people who support this state.

WP, you make me puke. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif) (IMG:http://i583.photobucket.com/albums/ss273/metasonix/vomit.gif)

[Alex]

WP, you make me puke. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

If that's the case, why do you spend so much of your time on this forum talking about it? If something made me "puke" I would certainly keep away from it - although that may be difficult with Wikipedia, I'd at least stop yakking about it on webforums.

[Milton Roe]

WP, you make me puke. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

If that's the case, why do you spend so much of your time on this forum talking about it? If something made me "puke" I would certainly keep away from it - although that may be difficult with Wikipedia, I'd at least stop yakking about it on webforums.

I see. So if the Republican Party (or the Democratic Party) made you puke, you'd just quit talking politics at all? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) I suppose your presence on the nets is only to heap praise?

Are you trolling me?

[The Adversary]

Back to "Sam_Blacketer":
With hindsight the answer to bainer´s question: "Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?" during
Requests_for_adminship/Sam_Blacketer is really rich.

...as "Sam_Blacketer" had been
desysopped less than a year earlier for that (among other issues)

In fact, many of the answers to that selfnom for admin-ship makes interesting reading today. ("Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? " (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) )

[Malleus]

Back to "Sam_Blacketer":
With hindsight the answer to bainer´s question: "Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?" during
Requests_for_adminship/Sam_Blacketer is really rich.

...as "Sam_Blacketer" had been
desysopped less than a year earlier for that (among other issues)

In fact, many of the answers to that selfnom for admin-ship makes interesting reading today. ("Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? " (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) )

I always have a sneaky regard for people who get away with deception on that kind of scale, as I simply wouldn't have the patience for it, and as they say, liars need to have good memories.

I do though find some of the rank-closing by Aitias in particular, and the rather slothful reaction of ArbCom to be a little distasteful.

[Ahypori]

Back to "Sam_Blacketer":
With hindsight the answer to bainer´s question: "Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?" during
Requests_for_adminship/Sam_Blacketer is really rich.

...as "Sam_Blacketer" had been
desysopped less than a year earlier for that (among other issues)

In fact, many of the answers to that selfnom for admin-ship makes interesting reading today. ("Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? " (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) )

I always have a sneaky regard for people who get away with deception on that kind of scale, as I simply wouldn't have the patience for it, and as they say, liars need to have good memories.

I do though find some of the rank-closing by Aitias in particular, and the rather slothful reaction of ArbCom to be a little distasteful.

Sam voted against the desysopping of Aitias, hence Aitias' support, as I noted in the main thread about Aitias.

[Viridae]

Hmmm it seems i blocked the guy way back in feb 2007. I remember that incident kinda.

[Malleus]

Sam voted against the desysopping of Aitias, hence Aitias' support, as I noted in the main thread about Aitias.

Ah!

[Milton Roe]

Sam voted against the desysopping of Aitias, hence Aitias' support, as I noted in the main thread about Aitias.

Ah!

How Greek.

[thekohser]

Wow... is all I can say. He sure fooled us. Thankfully he has stepped down.

You're still loving your ongoing labor for this corrupt organization, though, aren't you Alex?

I, for one, hope that "Sam Blacketer" is as sick as a parrot!

[A User]

WP, you make me puke. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

If that's the case, why do you spend so much of your time on this forum talking about it? If something made me "puke" I would certainly keep away from it - although that may be difficult with Wikipedia, I'd at least stop yakking about it on webforums.

Roe's drama queen histrionics does get tiring (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[EricBarbour]

Yes lucky old David Boothroyd AKA as Wikipedia User Sam Blacketer, User Fys, User Dbiv and User David Boothroyd, was having his privacy protected by his chums.

That is quite disgusting. If I did that I'd be accused of socking.

BTW, when you say the name "Boothroyd" to me, I immediately think of this gentleman,
one of the founders of Meridian. Hideously expensive hi-fi gear that still pretends to be all-British,
yet is rumored to be currently made by a Chinese contractor......

[Milton Roe]

WP, you make me puke. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

If that's the case, why do you spend so much of your time on this forum talking about it? If something made me "puke" I would certainly keep away from it - although that may be difficult with Wikipedia, I'd at least stop yakking about it on webforums.

Roe's drama queen histrionics does get tiring (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Feel free not to read. The difference (and it's not small one) is that I don't write to game any system or gain any power.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) So stick it, Alex.

[thekohser]

Last night, I sent the following to the WikiEN-l mailing list:

+++++ ----- +++++ ----- +++++
On Nov 24, 2007 3:37 PM, Christiano Moreschi <moreschiwikiman at hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Core_Contest



On Sat Nov 24 16:00:03 UTC 2007 Sam Blacketer
sam.blacketer at googlemail.com commented:


I hope Greg Kohs is as sick as a parrot.

--
Sam Blacketer
London E15

+++++ ----- +++++ ----- +++++


I hope you'll all join me in saying that I hope "Sam Blacketer" is as sick as a parrot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...001#Resignation

It took a while, but once again, we can all see that those who cast stones at me are very often guilty of much worse than I've ever done on Wikipedia. Sick as a parrot, indeed.

--
Gregory Kohs

This was the response I received this morning:

Your request to the WikiEN-l mailing list

Posting of your message titled "Re: Get paid to edit ethically"

has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the
following reason for rejecting your request:

"Sorry Greg, can't see a reason to let this flame war continue. --
Steve B."

Any questions or comments should be directed to the list administrator
at:

wikien-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org

I can't say that I'm surprised, or that I blame the list moderators. My snappy "told you so" was probably too powerful and would have led to the complete collapse of the Wikipedia system. So, for survival itself, they had to reject it.

Don't worry, I sent an even more inflammatory retort to Jimmy Wales, Mike Godwin (both of whom said, "Sorry, but there's nothing we can do" when I complained that "Blacketer" was using their tax-advantaged mailing list to wish ill on me and call my business and my clients unethical), David Gerard (to teach me how to skull dance), and "Sam Blacketer" himself. They'll get the message, one way or another. I don't need their stinking WikiEN-l list to do it. In fact, rejecting the post just makes them look even more corrupt.

Greg

[georgeieboy]

This is what wikipedia is all about. Falsehood and liars, have a look at this lying fuck. And what has he been up to? I would ban him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...ard#Resignation
here is his lying user page with a cat on it. What a git!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Blacketer

[sbrown]

I do support Greg whos been treated very badly by someone now proved to be even more scum than the usual run of wikidiot. Some of them have the excuse they dont know better but were led astray by the cabal or there own stupidity. Hes clever and knew fulwell what he was doing.

Can Staff please confirm that if "Sam" has an account here hes been blocked?

[Milton Roe]

Don't worry, I sent an even more inflammatory retort to Jimmy Wales, Mike Godwin (both of whom said, "Sorry, but there's nothing we can do" when I complained that "Blacketer" was using their tax-advantaged mailing list to wish ill on me and call my business and my clients unethical), David Gerard (to teach me how to skull dance), and "Sam Blacketer" himself. They'll get the message, one way or another. I don't need their stinking WikiEN-l list to do it. In fact, rejecting the post just makes them look even more corrupt.

Um, if I include Jimbo and Godwin's mindless defense of "Blacketer" do you think they'd label me as unconvincing and windy?

Oh, gee, there's nothing you can do against these people, eh, Jimbo? Blacketer's more powerful than you? He has the keys to the servers and gives orders to Vibber?

I think not. You CHOSE to back this gameplayer. Once again, you chose.... poorly.

[thekohser]

Yahoo! Answers joins the censorship squad:

from Yahoo! Answers <answers-alert@cc.yahoo-inc.com>
to thekohser (at) gmail.com
date Mon, May 25, 2009 at 10:25 AM
subject Violation Notice Email
mailed-by returns.bulk.yahoo.com
signed-by cc.yahoo-inc.com


Hello Owner of Wikipedia Review (thekohser)

You have posted content to Yahoo! Answers in violation of our Community Guidelines or Terms of Service. As a result, your content has been deleted. Community Guidelines help to keep Yahoo! Answers a safe and useful community, so we appreciate your consideration of its rules.

Deleted Question: Who is "Sam Blacketer" on the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee?

Question Details:

Violation Reason:Community Guidelines and/or Terms Of Service Violation

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[GlassBeadGame]

It never ceases to amaze me the rancor Wikipedian express when they are deceived or mistreated. When innocent outsiders are maligned, content inaccurate, distorted reflecting prevailing "community" POV or the children of "outsiders" placed at risk...well, not so much.

[Jon Awbrey]

It never ceases to amaze me the rancor Wikipedian express when they are deceived or mistreated. When innocent outsiders are maligned, content inaccurate, distorted reflecting prevailing "community" POV or the children of "outsiders" placed at risk … well, not so much.

What makes it even more amazing is what they consider "mistreatment" — like any time someone tries to take a peek under their white sheets.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

It never ceases to amaze me the rancor Wikipedian express when they are deceived or mistreated. When innocent outsiders are maligned, content inaccurate, distorted reflecting prevailing "community" POV or the children of "outsiders" placed at risk … well, not so much.

What makes it even more amazing is what they consider "mistreatment" — like any time someone tries to take a peek under their white sheets.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Violating the Honor Code of Hooded Authority is serious business.

[Kato]

And Sam Blacketer almost certainly is a pseudonym.

As mentioned in this thread here. the pseudonymous Sam Blacketer attacked Greg by name on wikien-l. Only Alex rightly called him on it.

On Nov 24, 2007 4:22 PM, Majorly <xxxxx at googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 24/11/2007, Sam Blacketer <xxxxx at googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I hope Greg Kohs is as sick as a parrot.
> <http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>
> Why would you say something like that?
>

Because it shows the utter pointlessness of Wikipedia Review, an attempt for him to
make money by writing supportive articles on his clients. As the header
says, "get paid to edit ethically" and that means that both the payments and
the edits are ethical, as opposed to Wikipedia Review when they were neither.

--
Sam Blacketer
London E15

I revisited this a few days ago, and I've figured out who Sam is. If Jimmy and the voters had known what his older account was, he probably wouldn't be an arb today.

You played a great round of Wikipedia this time, Sam.

So Sam Blacketer was that Dbiv guy from a few years ago?

Dbiv was bad news. He played Wikipedia like a board game, providing one of the worst examples of cronyism. He was completely unethical, and I hope he is now sick as a parrot.

Case closed.

Yet another example of why WP's governance is just a mess.

[Somey]

If that's the case, why do you spend so much of your time on this forum talking about it? If something made me "puke" I would certainly keep away from it - although that may be difficult with Wikipedia, I'd at least stop yakking about it on webforums.

How many times do we have to answer this question, in painful, excruciating detail, before you stop asking it?

Can Staff please confirm that if "Sam" has an account here hes been blocked?

Personally, I don't believe he has an account here... definitely not under any of the Wikipedia names he's used, at least, though of course he probably would have come up with something completely different. And of course, I don't have access to Wikipedia CheckUser data to confirm something like that. (Gee, I wonder why not...)

Still, I doubt he would have registered here at all - I'm sure it's not easy to keep track of all those identities concurrently on multiple sites.

[zvook]

I revisited this a few days ago, and I've figured out who Sam is. If Jimmy and the voters had known what his older account was, he probably wouldn't be an arb today.

You played a great round of Wikipedia this time, Sam.

How did you link Fys with Sam Blacketer? Was it just by looking at likely candidates in topic areas and timing, and following the various rabbitholes thereof? It's been noted that the accounts were deliberately overlapped to make this difficult to near-impossible.

[Milton Roe]

So Sam Blacketer was that Dbiv guy from a few years ago?

Dbiv was bad news. He played Wikipedia like a board game, providing one of the worst examples of cronyism. He was completely unethical, and I hope he is now sick as a parrot.

Case closed.

Yet another example of why WP's governance is just a mess.

And let us not fail to notice the hypocrisy of the fact that when we found out what Boothroyd/Blacketer did for a living, it was (according to his now-suddenly deleted BLP) pretty much what he accused Greg of doing, above, while "Blacketer." Providing potted bios of UK politicians for money. Which, in his case, he duly eventually uploaded to Wikipedia. He's done hundreds of them. SO--- this was not all work done compleley altruistically and as a hobby.

Jimbo, you've been had, again, by somebody you protected and your people promoted. And I see you're now blocking Kohs from pointing out in most public fora what a dupe you've been AGAIN. Which means that NOW you really ARE effectively protecting one guy who used Wikipedia for a business-extension, at the expense of another who did it honestly. If you didn't before, you certainly are NOW. No fair hiding under the banner of ignorance NOW.

Windily and Unconvincingly Yrs,

Milton Roe

[LessHorrid vanU]

Last night, I sent the following to the WikiEN-l mailing list:

+++++ ----- +++++ ----- +++++
On Nov 24, 2007 3:37 PM, Christiano Moreschi <moreschiwikiman at hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Core_Contest



On Sat Nov 24 16:00:03 UTC 2007 Sam Blacketer
sam.blacketer at googlemail.com commented:


I hope Greg Kohs is as sick as a parrot.

--
Sam Blacketer
London E15

+++++ ----- +++++ ----- +++++


I hope you'll all join me in saying that I hope "Sam Blacketer" is as sick as a parrot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...001#Resignation

It took a while, but once again, we can all see that those who cast stones at me are very often guilty of much worse than I've ever done on Wikipedia. Sick as a parrot, indeed.

--
Gregory Kohs

This was the response I received this morning:

Your request to the WikiEN-l mailing list

Posting of your message titled "Re: Get paid to edit ethically"

has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the
following reason for rejecting your request:

"Sorry Greg, can't see a reason to let this flame war continue. --
Steve B."

Any questions or comments should be directed to the list administrator
at:

wikien-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org

I can't say that I'm surprised, or that I blame the list moderators. My snappy "told you so" was probably too powerful and would have led to the complete collapse of the Wikipedia system. So, for survival itself, they had to reject it.

Don't worry, I sent an even more inflammatory retort to Jimmy Wales, Mike Godwin (both of whom said, "Sorry, but there's nothing we can do" when I complained that "Blacketer" was using their tax-advantaged mailing list to wish ill on me and call my business and my clients unethical), David Gerard (to teach me how to skull dance), and "Sam Blacketer" himself. They'll get the message, one way or another. I don't need their stinking WikiEN-l list to do it. In fact, rejecting the post just makes them look even more corrupt.

Greg

C'mon, Greg. If they were really going to stop you from trying to contact them regarding your mutual history they would have responded with,

"Thank you for your esteemed custom. The "Severe Shirley" latex bondage-nurses uniform will be dispatched promptly, with an invoice that is payable within 14 days of this acknowledgment."

To ensure your retreat, they would then send a large, ripped, empty box to your home address (which they know) together with said promised invoice still firmly attached.

That is what I would do, anyway. I think the doors of communication are still open between you and WP.

[Milton Roe]

That is what I would do, anyway. I think the doors of communication are still open between you and WP.

You think so? Since "Blacketer" turns out to have been doing on WP what he did for money in real life, which was bios of UK politicos, I'm waiting for Jimbo to tell me I'm "windy and unconvincing" when I note that he's been HAD again by the gamer, while at the same time banning the honest man Kohs.

Could you let him know I'm waiting for him to come here and have it out with me, on neutral ground, where neither of us has the advantage? Apparently he has his fingers stuck in his ears when it comes to Kohs. The wonderful irony being that his last pronouncement on the issue happened just as he got pwned again by one of this gamers. Something he still is not admitting, therefore pwning him yet again. The man can't win.

[tarantino]

How did you link Fys with Sam Blacketer? Was it just by looking at likely candidates in topic areas and timing, and following the various rabbitholes thereof? It's been noted that the accounts were deliberately overlapped to make this difficult to near-impossible.

Something I found on WP. I don't want to say exactly what because people may avoid doing it in the future. Edits times and interests were then compared to confirm it.

Here's a chart of the overlapping edit histories. Sam is blue and Fys is red.

(IMG:http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg231/sonitnarat/sam.png)

[CharlotteWebb]

http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg231/sonitnarat/sam.png

This looks interesting. What software do you use to construct this chart?

Not sure I've seen anyone with such a regular sleep pattern.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[zvook]

Something I found on WP. I don't want to say exactly what because people may avoid doing it in the future. Edits times and interests were then compared to confirm it.

Here's a chart of the overlapping edit histories. Sam is blue and Fys is red.

Understood, and all quite interesting. Had I only demonstrated similar skills in the past, I could now salute you as an Irish monk. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[RMHED]

How did you link Fys with Sam Blacketer? Was it just by looking at likely candidates in topic areas and timing, and following the various rabbitholes thereof? It's been noted that the accounts were deliberately overlapped to make this difficult to near-impossible.

Something I found on WP. I don't want to say exactly what because people may avoid doing it in the future. Edits times and interests were then compared to confirm it.

Here's a chart of the overlapping edit histories. Sam is blue and Fys is red.

(IMG:http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg231/sonitnarat/sam.png)

Looks like somebody's got a little bit too much time on their hands. It really isn't important you know, it's just a sodding website.

[Son of a Yeti]

Not sure I've seen anyone with such a regular sleep pattern.

And long holidays. Which, by the way, were the only time when he did not hack WP for 16 hours a day (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

[The Joy]

How did you link Fys with Sam Blacketer? Was it just by looking at likely candidates in topic areas and timing, and following the various rabbitholes thereof? It's been noted that the accounts were deliberately overlapped to make this difficult to near-impossible.

Something I found on WP. I don't want to say exactly what because people may avoid doing it in the future. Edits times and interests were then compared to confirm it.

Here's a chart of the overlapping edit histories. Sam is blue and Fys is red.

(IMG:http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg231/sonitnarat/sam.png)

Looks like somebody's got a little bit too much time on their hands. It really isn't important you know, it's just a sodding website.

No, it is not "just a website." How many times do we have to say it here? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[RMHED]

How did you link Fys with Sam Blacketer? Was it just by looking at likely candidates in topic areas and timing, and following the various rabbitholes thereof? It's been noted that the accounts were deliberately overlapped to make this difficult to near-impossible.

Something I found on WP. I don't want to say exactly what because people may avoid doing it in the future. Edits times and interests were then compared to confirm it.

Here's a chart of the overlapping edit histories. Sam is blue and Fys is red.

(IMG:http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg231/sonitnarat/sam.png)

Looks like somebody's got a little bit too much time on their hands. It really isn't important you know, it's just a sodding website.

No, it is not "just a website." How many times do we have to say it here? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Yes it is "just a website", albeit one that punches way above its financial weight. Wikipedia isn't important, at best it's useful, at worst it's libellous. If you or others want to imbue it with power it doesn't have, then that's up to you.

[LessHorrid vanU]

How did you link Fys with Sam Blacketer? Was it just by looking at likely candidates in topic areas and timing, and following the various rabbitholes thereof? It's been noted that the accounts were deliberately overlapped to make this difficult to near-impossible.

Something I found on WP. I don't want to say exactly what because people may avoid doing it in the future. Edits times and interests were then compared to confirm it.

Here's a chart of the overlapping edit histories. Sam is blue and Fys is red.

(IMG:http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg231/sonitnarat/sam.png)

Looks like somebody's got a little bit too much time on their hands. It really isn't important you know, it's just a sodding website.

Um, if Greg is to believed then it wasn't a case of too much time on their hands - but what they were paid to be doing. If they were working freelance on a results basis then they had no reason to divide the day between work and play, and especially if they got themselves into an area of responsibility on the site. Is there a chance of a article/non-article breakdown within the above?

[RMHED]

How did you link Fys with Sam Blacketer? Was it just by looking at likely candidates in topic areas and timing, and following the various rabbitholes thereof? It's been noted that the accounts were deliberately overlapped to make this difficult to near-impossible.

Something I found on WP. I don't want to say exactly what because people may avoid doing it in the future. Edits times and interests were then compared to confirm it.

Here's a chart of the overlapping edit histories. Sam is blue and Fys is red.

http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg231/sonitnarat/sam.png

Looks like somebody's got a little bit too much time on their hands. It really isn't important you know, it's just a sodding website.

Um, if Greg is to believed then it wasn't a case of too much time on their hands - but what they were paid to be doing. If they were working freelance on a results basis then they had no reason to divide the day between work and play, and especially if they got themselves into an area of responsibility on the site. Is there a chance of a article/non-article breakdown within the above?

Sam may or may not have too much time on his hands, my comment was directed at Tarantino. It really isn't that important you know LHvU, get a grip. Honestly, who but the obsessives really cares what Sammy boy was doing, he's been rumbled.

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

Yes it is "just a website", albeit one that punches way above its financial weight. Wikipedia isn't important, at best it's useful, at worst it's libellous.

Wikipedia holds itself out to be an encyclopedia and so invites its audience to trust it (despite the well hidden "ignore us, we're crap" disclaimer). It's an attempt to enclose, own and control knowledge on a substantial scale, and the efforts of its unpaid labourers to downplay the implications of that enterprise don't make it any less poisonous.

The "just a website" ploy - which seems to get pulled out by every other wikipediot that blows through here - is as disingenuous as the "just a mop" dismissal of adminship.

[One]

http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg231/sonitnarat/sam.png

This looks interesting. What software do you use to construct this chart?

Not sure I've seen anyone with such a regular sleep pattern.

I have. Baxter was pretty clockwork, for example. But half of Wikipedians have atrocious sleeping patterns--due to not having jobs, no doubt. Mine are awful.

I just use Excel.

[tarantino]

This looks interesting. What software do you use to construct this chart?

Not sure I've seen anyone with such a regular sleep pattern.

It's a scatter plot from a spreadsheet.

Looks like somebody's got a little bit too much time on their hands. It really isn't important you know, it's just a sodding website.

It really doesn't take that much time, maybe a half hour or so. Cool Hand Luke could confirm that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John254_...ten_Eriksen.png

Is there a chance of a article/non-article breakdown within the above?

It would be easy to do, but would take a little longer.

[RMHED]

Yes it is "just a website", albeit one that punches way above its financial weight. Wikipedia isn't important, at best it's useful, at worst it's libellous.

Wikipedia holds itself out to be an encyclopedia and so invites its audience to trust it (despite the well hidden "ignore us, we're crap" disclaimer). It's an attempt to enclose, own and control knowledge on a substantial scale, and the efforts of its unpaid labourers to downplay the implications of that enterprise don't make it any less poisonous.

The "just a website" ploy - which seems to get pulled out by every other wikipediot that blows through here - is as disingenuous as the "just a mop" dismissal of adminship.

If any one is foolish enough to take a Wikipedia article at face value then they probably deserve a bloody good slap.

It really is "just a website", in the same way that Google or Amazon are just websites. Now Google and Amazon being powerful commercial concerns will likely survive for a time, Wikipedia on the other hand is exceedingly unlikely to be around for very long, it has no financial clout.

The fact that so many obsess about Wikipedia is probably more worrying than anything actually contained on Wikipedia.

[One]

Looks like somebody's got a little bit too much time on their hands. It really isn't important you know, it's just a sodding website.

It really doesn't take that much time, maybe a half hour or so. Cool Hand Luke could confirm that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John254_...ten_Eriksen.png

After you have the settings for the plot worked up, it takes less time than that to make subsequent plots; just a matter of cutting and pasting.

[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.

[Obesity]

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.

I'm happy to see you conducting such careful due diligence.

I mean, how silly would you look if you added someone to Hivemind later to find out you had the wrong person?

BTW, Gwen Gale is kind of hot. I always pegged her for a fat Wiccan-type.

This post has been edited by Obesity:

[EricBarbour]

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"?

That's the general opinion. Big-time operator of socks.

Also had a BLP, managed to get Jehochman to "vanish" it .....

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[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"?

That's the general opinion. Big-time operator of socks.

Okay, I'm convinced. Call me crazy, but arbitrators should show their real name on their user page. (With the exception — of course — of situations when Jimbo considers it a pseudonym and doesn't have a problem with it, like Essjay.)

[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"?

That's the general opinion. Big-time operator of socks.

Okay, I'm convinced. Call me crazy, but arbitrators should show their real name on their user page. (With the exception — of course — of situations when Jimbo considers it a pseudonym and doesn't have a problem with it, like Essjay.)

I'd argue for it, but would be windy and unconvincing. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

You will pay for that, Jimbo. If there's any soul in this world more windy and unconvincing than you yourself at this point, it would have have to be either Rush Limbaugh, or one of those Hollywood people in need of rehab.

[EricBarbour]

Gee, after looking into Boothroyd's past activities, I must declare my amazement at how
corrupt Wikipedia was shown to be in his case.

This guy operated multiple sock accounts, managed to become a sysop and get desysopped,
got "friends" (such as Jehochman, Ryulong and Can't Sleep) to help cover up his past history, got
sysopped again under a different name......and all the time, may also have been editing
the BLPs of British politicians for pay.

Marvelous achievement. Bravo. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

[Milton Roe]

BTW, Gwen Gale is kind of hot. I always pegged her for a fat Wiccan-type.

Oh yeah, those fat Wiccan-types. Know just what you mean. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

[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.

[The Joy]

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.

I wonder what he will say?

"FOOLED YOU! So long, suckers!" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[Sarcasticidealist]

I wonder what he will say?

My assumption is that he's going to "voluntarily" resign as an admin (which will no doubt be considered to be "under a cloud" for re-sysopping purposes). This post by Carcharoth suggests that the question of whether or not he's going to remain an admin no longer needs a resolution from Arb Comm, and the only explanation I can think of for why that might be is that Sam has decided to relinquish it.

[Jon Awbrey]

Gee, after looking into Boothroyd's past activities, I must declare my amazement at how corrupt Wikipedia was shown to be in his case.

EATCODO —

Every Abuse That Can Occur Does Occur

Given the utter lack of accountability in the system, it's a safe bet that the actual level of corruption is 10 to 100 times what they ever get around to discovering.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[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.

[EricBarbour]

Soooo much butt-snorkeling......

<-I tend to agree with Nathan here. Sam is a prime example of someone who learned from his earlier mistakes and made a fresh start. While, in hindsight, it has the appearance of impropriety, I don't believe it was done in bad faith. I also don't believe that an investigation of Sam's conduct toward those involved in Fys's desysoping & blocks (the investigation does need to happen) will turn up any bad faith actions. --Versageek 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(←) There is absolutely no reason for desysoping Sam at all. — Aitias // discussion 21:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go on the record here to state, without hesitation, that no such thing should take place. While Sam definitely should have made this disclosure earlier, and that it is almost certain that his probabilities of having been elected would have been significantly affected if that information was known before he had a seat, those votes were made while he was an arbitrator in good standing. There are a number of things Sam should have done, but there is no suggestion that he has not acted as an arbitrator with diligence and neutrality during his tenure— or that his votes have suddenly retroactively become invalid.
This new information means that his continued presence on the committee is not appropriate— not that he has become an unperson and that every trace of the past two years need to be "undone".
If anything, Sam is an illustration that it is possible to turn over a new leaf from a bad start on Wikipedia to become a respected and productive member of the community. I agree that he went about it the wrong way, but not that his past behavior is suddenly false. — Coren (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

And Ottava still deserves to be castrated..... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

[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.

[tarantino]

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

If he is non-notable, they should probably remove some of the 721 links* to his personal web page.

* None of those links that I've checked were added by Sam, or anyone that appears to be Sam.

[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)

[Daniel Brandt]

The entire EAC (evil arbitration committee) should resign over this.

I know what a "kangaroo court" is, but is there a name for kangaroo court where some of the judges wear masks so that no one knows who they are, and they still have full voting privileges?

That's what EAC is. I have zero sympathy for any real-life attorneys on EAC. In fact, their local bar associations should be notified that they are making a mockery of their profession because of their membership on EAC.

[EricBarbour]

Damn this is a hot one. Mr. Boothroyd clearly belongs on the Wiki-Shitheap, next
to Essjay and Poetlister and Gary Weiss. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

(in which case, is Hochman going to apologize for trying to make Boothroyd's BLP go away?)

Let's say it again: damn you, Jimbo, and damn your little Arb-o-Commy friends.

[The Joy]

Gee, after looking into Boothroyd's past activities, I must declare my amazement at how corrupt Wikipedia was shown to be in his case.

EATCODO —

Every Abuse That Can Occur Does Occur

Given the utter lack of accountability in the system, it's a safe bet that the actual level of corruption is 10 to 100 times what they ever get around to discovering.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Indeed. Ironically, Slim Virgin and Majorly seem to agree with you! They miss the point and irony, of course.

Suggestion for the future

Could we make it a stipulation in future that all ArbCom candidates must publicly disclose previous accounts before the election? If there are privacy concerns, they should at least disclose publicly the number of accounts, timeframe, and number of edits with those accounts, then send the usernames to Jimbo.

As things stand, some candidates are asked if they've had previous accounts, and some aren't. Some give clear answers, some give ambiguous ones. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The names should be sent to the AC, not Jimmy. One point of failure is unacceptable, and the trend is to move away from the old model. If people don't trust to disclose to the AC itself, why are they even running? rootology/equality 03:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

They may well be asked to disclose, but people lie. Majorly talk 03:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The names of accounts can't be sent to the ArbCom if there are privacy concerns, because we don't know who all members of the ArbCom are, as this case shows clearly. We can't ask people to send names of previous accounts that might identify them into a void. If not Jimbo, then Cary, but it has to be a known, named, responsible person. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The simple solution for this is the ensure that the current committee is trusted by the community. This is needed for other reasons, and is part of why this why this is happening right now. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Part of the reason it's not fair to ask people to trust it is that we don't know who everyone is (or used to be), so we can't just say "the solution is for the Committtee to be trusted." It's a vicious circle. Best thing is if ArbCom candidates are formally asked to disclose upfront. If they can be trusted, they won't mind doing it, surely. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

[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.)

[A User]

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.

I wonder what he will say?

"FOOLED YOU! So long, suckers!" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Heh (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) 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 any arbcom 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.

http://www.westminster.gov.uk/councillors/cllr.cfm?cllr_id=6

This post has been edited by WikiWatch:

[Sarcasticidealist]

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.

Er, what Arb Comm decision? Per the link I posted above, Arb Comm isn't going to make any decision on him, apparently.

[TungstenCarbide]

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.

So... he identified himself to the foundation to get on the arbcom. But surely he'd have know that that would lead back to the de-sysopped Dbiv/Fys accounts and their outted identity? Something doesn't add up.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[Sarcasticidealist]

So... he identified himself to the foundation to get on the arbcom.

No he didn't; this is discussed extensively earlier in the thread.

[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.)

[TungstenCarbide]

So... he identified himself to the foundation to get on the arbcom.

No he didn't; this is discussed extensively earlier in the thread.

Sorry, I missed that. I thought all arbcom members except one had identified themselves to the foundation.

[Kevin]

I wonder what he will say?

My assumption is that he's going to "voluntarily" resign as an admin (which will no doubt be considered to be "under a cloud" for re-sysopping purposes). This post by Carcharoth suggests that the question of whether or not he's going to remain an admin no longer needs a resolution from Arb Comm, and the only explanation I can think of for why that might be is that Sam has decided to relinquish it.

A bit of a weak cop-out really. It's been over 2 days and 50 edits since he resigned as arbitrator, and he was online less than 10 minutes before Carcharoth's announcement. He has had his chance to do the right thing, and now should be shown the door.

[Random832]

Okay, I'm convinced. Call me crazy, but arbitrators should show their real name on their user page.

So answer me this: Of the four arbitrators who are presently listed on hivemind and whose real name (which agrees with their hivemind entry) is listed on their userpage, which will you be removing first? Because, without that, what reason do Newyorkbrad or Cool Hand Luke have to believe that you're sincere about removing their entries - and having it stick - if they post their names? Call it a gesture of good faith in your supposed "all arbitrators should be treated equally" bit. Costs you nothing if you were being truthful.

----

Edit: Apparently some of those are former arbitrators. Sorry about that; my source seems to be out of date.

This post has been edited by Random832:

[Sarcasticidealist]

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.

See here.

A bit of a weak cop-out really. It's been over 2 days and 50 edits since he resigned as arbitrator, and he was online less than 10 minutes before Carcharoth's announcement. He has had his chance to do the right thing, and now should be shown the door.

I agree, actually.

[Random832]

Sorry, I missed that. I thought all arbcom members except one had identified themselves to the foundation.

Consensus here seems to be that he's the "one".

[Daniel Brandt]

So... he identified himself to the foundation to get on the arbcom. But surely he'd have know that that would lead back to the de-sysopped Dbiv/Fys accounts and their outted identity? Something doesn't add up.

You are asuming that the Foundation makes sure that everyone is identified. And then you are assuming that they run a few Google searches or Wikipedia searches to look for socks. Why, I ask, why do you assume that the Foundation is competent? If you assume that they are competent, then why do you assume that they want to act on obvious conflicts of interest? After all, their legal counsel, Mike Godwin, will tell them to stay away from it because Foundation involvement has Section 230 implications and might hurt their claim to immunity concerning anything that happens on Wikipedia.

There are so many holes in this cheesy operation that it wouldn't even fly in Switzerland!

[TungstenCarbide]

Sorry, I missed that. I thought all arbcom members except one had identified themselves to the foundation.

Consensus here seems to be that he's the "one".

What about Vassyana

[EricBarbour]

So answer me this: Of the four arbitrators who are presently listed on hivemind and whose real name (which agrees with their hivemind entry) is listed on their userpage, which will you be removing first? Because, without that, what reason do Newyorkbrad or Cool Hand Luke have to believe that you're sincere about removing their entries - and having it stick - if they post their names? Call it a gesture of good faith in your supposed "all arbitrators should be treated equally" bit.

You know damn well that's not the real issue. The real issue is when an arbcommer goes
around covering up his identity as a POV pusher and all-round bastard, when evidence
exists all over WP's database and elsewhere.

And yeah, I do believe that ALL arbcommers should be known to the editors they oversee.
Most of them have self-identified, or could be identified from personal statements or by other means.
See the current official list for yourself.

1. Carcharoth (talk • contribs • email) (carcharothwp-at-gmail.com)
2. Casliber (talk • contribs • email)
3. Cool Hand Luke (talk • contribs • email) (User.CoolHandLuke-at-gmail.com)
4. Coren (talk • contribs • email) (marc-at-uberbox.org)
5. FayssalF (talk • contribs • email) (Fayssal Fertakh, szvest-at-gmail.com)
6. FloNight (talk • contribs • email)
7. Jayvdb (talk • contribs • email) (John Vandenberg, jayvdb-at-gmail.com)
8. Kirill Lokshin (talk • contribs • email) (kirill.lokshin-at-gmail.com)
9. Newyorkbrad (talk • contribs • email) (newyorkbrad-at-gmail.com)
10. Risker (talk • contribs • email)
11. Rlevse (talk • contribs • email)
12. Roger Davies (talk • contribs • email) (roger.davies.wiki-at-gmail.com)
13. Stephen Bain (talk • contribs • email) (aka "bainer", formerly Thebainer, stephen.bain-at-gmail.com)
14. Vassyana (talk • contribs • email) (Pete Sienkiewicz, vassyana-at-gmail.com)
15. Wizardman (talk • contribs • email) (wizardmanwiki-at-gmail.com)

Vassyana appears to be named Pete Sienkiewicz. Anyone know who Casliber really is?

[Sarcasticidealist]

Anyone know who Casliber really is?

Cas Liber, an Australian psychiatrist.

[EricBarbour]

Stupid me, I coulda Googled him.

Okay, what about old SV buddy Flonight?

[Daniel Brandt]

Stupid me, I coulda Googled him.

Okay, what about old SV buddy Flonight?

Flonight

[EricBarbour]

Flonight

You just added that, didn't you? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Well, then, how about Risker?

[Milton Roe]

How did you link Fys with Sam Blacketer? Was it just by looking at likely candidates in topic areas and timing, and following the various rabbitholes thereof? It's been noted that the accounts were deliberately overlapped to make this difficult to near-impossible.

Something I found on WP. I don't want to say exactly what because people may avoid doing it in the future. Edits times and interests were then compared to confirm it.
Here's a chart of the overlapping edit histories. Sam is blue and Fys is red.

Amazing job. After looking in the BLP you find that Boothroyd worked as a research assistant for Ian Lucas an MP from Wexham. And sure enough, "Fys" is the second author of this BLP, adding considerable personal content to it. (Sam categorizes it later, too).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...8&oldid=2955230

But you can't in general find this sort of thing by whose interested in British politicos. Fys and Sam Blacketer may have edited a lot of the same UK political articles, but it's nothing compared with the output of (say) a Morwen or a BrownHairedGirl, who are different people and not the same, and who eclipse Boothroyd by far. In fact they share 2500 or something UK political articles or something. It's not a Huggle artifact, it's real obscession. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

[Viridae]

Flonight

You just added that, didn't you? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Well, then, how about Risker?

Flo has been on there for ages.

[A User]

Would someone be able to confirm if User:84.70.185.136 and User:84.64.48.169 is linked to Sam Blacketer and Fys? Sam Blacketer locked the article Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox straight after User:84.70.185.136 last edit and again straight after the last edit by User:84.64.48.169 (both appear to be from the same internet company). Sam Blacketer, Fys and Dbiv all edited in that article and reverted edits.

[EricBarbour]

I tried Google and WR search on Risker--didn't see much of anything.
Very low profile. RFA reveals nothing, except she's a she, and evidently
like James Blunt a lot. (She keeps such a low profile, not many people
even knew her gender.)

Bah. Either Arbcom will devise some kind of proper "policy" about their own members,
or things will stagger along as before. Daniel can out her if he wishes, though it might
not serve any useful purpose.

Now, Wizardman......that's a mystery.
He opposed flagged revs and opposed open identity for bureaucrats.
And just barely squeaked in to Arbcom in the election.
Very fond of (American) football. Again, low profile otherwise.

Screw this, I'm tired of looking thru logs.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[jayvdb]

IIRC Dominic edited the bio around the same time that Sam says he informed his colleagues of his intentions to retire. Admins may want to confirm that.

That would mean something if Dominic was still on the arb-l mailing list, but seeing as he was removed before then with all the other functionaries, I don't think it does. And in the same period, Dominic was editing several sex-related articles as part of an AFD series, so again, I don't see an explicit connection.

Also, Dominic was the arb who first proposed desysopping Dbiv , so I cannot imagine him all of a sudden deciding to help the fellow out under the table.

I asked Dominic about this before any ex-arbitrators were informed, and he was not aware of who Sam Blacketer was in a former wiki career. A strange coincidence, but I do believe it is simply that.

Another mystery is that IP 62.254.64.14 (T-C-L-K-R-D) created the biography and two weeks prior they are having a go at Jdforrester and Kelly Martin. I am having trouble believing that is just a coincidence.

(added Kelly Martin)

This post has been edited by jayvdb:

[Deacon]

The entire EAC (evil arbitration committee) should resign over this.

Demanding they all resign is like asking Obama to resign because Medvedev is corrupt. One arbitrator was naughty, but the other arbs aren't responsible for his behaviour. Most of them weren't even arbs when Sam ascended the position, and it's difficult to hold any of the arbs responsible for the system of anonymity.

This post has been edited by Deacon:

[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)

[Random832]

So answer me this: Of the four arbitrators who are presently listed on hivemind and whose real name (which agrees with their hivemind entry) is listed on their userpage, which will you be removing first? Because, without that, what reason do Newyorkbrad or Cool Hand Luke have to believe that you're sincere about removing their entries - and having it stick - if they post their names? Call it a gesture of good faith in your supposed "all arbitrators should be treated equally" bit.

You know damn well that's not the real issue. The real issue is when an arbcommer goes
around covering up his identity as a POV pusher and all-round bastard, when evidence
exists all over WP's database and elsewhere.

One thing being an issue does not mean another thing is not an issue. He has stated hivemind criteria that excludes several people currently on hivemind - the right thing to do is either A) remove them B) change the criteria C) admit there are no real criteria besides his arbitrary whims. This is independent of anything anyone else has done except insofar as it applies to whether they meet the purported criteria.

[Apathetic]

Among cries of recall, he's announced he will stand for reconfirmation on June 15th - retaining the tools until then, but not using them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=292396331

This post has been edited by Apathetic:

[A Horse With No Name]

BTW, Gwen Gale is kind of hot. I always pegged her for a fat Wiccan-type.

Another Hot Chili Mama? Mmmm, Horsey likes that! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

I tried Google and WR search on Risker--didn't see much of anything.
Very low profile. RFA reveals nothing, except she's a she, and evidently
like James Blunt a lot. (She keeps such a low profile, not many people
even knew her gender.)

Yup, Risker is a she. More information would be welcome, of course. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[bambi]

Cade Metz from The Register on Boothroyd.

[CharlotteWebb]

Cas Liber, an Australian psychiatrist.

Funny, I thought he was a mycologist. I should go ask Alice about this. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

Would someone be able to confirm if User:84.70.185.136 and User:84.64.48.169 is linked to Sam Blacketer and Fys? Sam Blacketer locked the article Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox straight after User:84.70.185.136 last edit and again straight after the last edit by User:84.64.48.169 (both appear to be from the same internet company). Sam Blacketer, Fys and Dbiv all edited in that article and reverted edits.

Whoever she is. This article would be Exhibit A had Sam and Dave chosen not to admit being the same user.

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

I'm sure a lot of people will disagree but I'm convinced that contacting people's workplaces to get them fired is more malicious than anything they might have done whilst fooling around on WP. However I am still curious what his connection to Poetguy is (some interesting commonalities can be found somewhere toward the beginning of this thread). There's a page somewhere (on meta I think?) that has [what is believed to be] the most complete list of Poetguy socks. I'd like to see what kind of interesting interactions I can find using for example the "intersectContribs" tool both on WP and Wikiquote. I have no reason to believe that Poetguy and Soulman are the same person; I'd mostly be looking for evidence that either of them had been aware of the other's multiple personae early on and had perhaps aided and abetted on that basis. There may be stuff worth writing home to arbcom about if in fact Soulman chooses not to resign.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[EricBarbour]

FWIW, Boothroyd also authored this book.

[CharlotteWebb]

Oh great, does that mean he's notable again now?

More than two years after the notorious Essjay Scandal, Wikipedia's ruling body still has a weakness for sockpuppetry.

I wasn't aware that the Essjay scandal involved sockpuppetry. Maybe are they referring to User:Robbie31? The effects of this user are pretty trivial and I don't recall him being considered part of the scandal, separate person or not.

[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.

[Apathetic]

File under: Wikipedia & WR ("a Wikiobsessed shadow site") in the news:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/26/wi...ter_councillor/

This post has been edited by Apathetic:

[Jon Awbrey]

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

Well, at least someone still remembers Poetlister.

Other than that, not one bit of learning has occurred.

Wikipediots, of course, have a rule against that.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[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!

[A Horse With No Name]

Your confession of guilt probably just reveals a deep seated need you had to be punished.

Mmmm...kinky. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Random832]

File under: Wikipedia & WR ("a Wikiobsessed shadow site") in the news:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/26/wi...ter_councillor/

File under: "read and did not understand Nineteen Eighty-four" for thinking that the abbreviation is what makes something like MiniTrue (or, for that matter, ArbCom) "Orwellian". In the book it is not the fact that it's abbreviated to a few initial syllables that is the point, but rather that (for example) the Ministry of Truth's task had more to do with propagating lies (and likewise for the other ministries). Whether or not the Arbitration Committee's name is Orwellian in this sense is, of course, left as an exercise for the reader.

[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.

[Peter Damian]

File under: Wikipedia & WR ("a Wikiobsessed shadow site") in the news:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/26/wi...ter_councillor/

File under: "read and did not understand Nineteen Eighty-four" for thinking that the abbreviation is what makes something like MiniTrue (or, for that matter, ArbCom) "Orwellian". In the book it is not the fact that it's abbreviated to a few initial syllables that is the point, but rather that (for example) the Ministry of Truth's task had more to do with propagating lies (and likewise for the other ministries). Whether or not the Arbitration Committee's name is Orwellian in this sense is, of course, left as an exercise for the reader.

I imagine the Orwellian-ness is in the Arbitration Committee's job of arbitration, i.e. fair and neutral and dispassionate and informed judgment.

[Milton Roe]

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 don't think it quite counts as Schadenfreude to see some bastard who has caused you harm, end up suffering in some other situation as a result of the same unfair tactics he used on you. Pure Schadenfreude is more sadistic, a bit like enjoying the sight of rich people getting ripped off by Bernie Madoff (say), even though none of them have 1) done anything to you, or 2) so far as you know, have done anything nasty to anyone else, either. Their only flaw is having more money than you do.

Take the bully boss at work. He goes around firing and/or emotionally abusing everybody he "outranks," without bothering to find out anything about them, because he doesn't care. He does it to you. Then you watch as he next does it to the boss's son, and it ends up blowing up in his face like a landmine, and he's out the door with this stuff in a cardboard box. Is your feeling Schadenfreude? Not really. More like having your justice itch scratched.

Of course the bully feels like he's been unfairly abused and terribly unlucky. But people with serious character flaws usually do.

[bambi]

Boothroyd's deleted wiki bio

Question: Why doesn't the Wikipedia robots.txt disallow all indexing by the Wayback Machine? Someone apparently considered disallowing the indexing of just User pages at one time, but even this is currently commented out:

# Don't allow the wayback-maschine to index user-pages
#User-agent: ia_archiver
#Disallow: /wiki/User
#Disallow: /wiki/Benutzer

Why would Wikipedia be more interested in disallowing User pages, and not at all interested in disallowing biographical articles that were deleted from en.wikipedia.org? When a bio is deleted and the associated history and talk pages are zapped also, there is presumably a reason for this. Why allow the Wayback Machine to show material that Wikipedia has decided not to show?

Answer: It's done to increase the drama of the whole thing. Either that, or the entire Wikipedia enterprise is utterly incompetent.

For archive.org the disallow would be instant and retroactive. Unlike other bots, they look at the robots.txt in real time, whenever anyone requests a URL from Wikipedia.


This post has been edited by bambi:

[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 don't think it quite counts as Schadenfreude to see some bastard who has caused you harm, end up suffering in some other situation as a result of the same unfair tactics he used on you. Pure Schadenfreude is more sadistic, a bit like enjoying the sight of rich people getting ripped off by Bernie Madoff (say), even though none of them have 1) done anything to you, or 2) so far as you know, have done anything nasty to anyone else, either. Their only flaw is having more money than you do.

Take the bully boss at work. He goes around firing and/or emotionally abusing everybody he "outranks," without bothering to find out anything about them, because he doesn't care. He does it to you. Then you watch as he next does it to the boss's son, and it ends up blowing up in his face like a landmine, and he's out the door with this stuff in a cardboard box. Is your feeling Schadenfreude? Not really. More like having your justice itch scratched.

Of course the bully feels like he's been unfairly abused and terribly unlucky. But people with serious character flaws usually do.

Actually, Sam Blacketer never screwed me personally. I'm happy that I told the truth, however embarrassing it was, and didn't really get screwed; but Sam lied and he's getting his real name posted all over the Register and the Review. Like I said, my real name is "out there" but nobody cares. (Thank God for that.) Same goes for Baxter -- and he really did screw me personally, wasted hours of my time getting me to appeal for him when he was guilty and still socking the whole time. I wasn't happy to see him get outed; I was quite saddened and shocked. But looking back, I can see that what I did was bad, but what Boothroyd and Baxter did was far worse. I still have a shred of dignity left to my name. They don't -- at least, I hope not.

I make no hesitation in comparing a former arbitrator to a serial vote-stacking sockmaster. The basic dishonesty is the same. It could reasonably be argued that, aside from the real-world impersonation and looking only at the on-wiki conduct, Fys/Sam's conduct might have been worse.

[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)

[Jon Awbrey]

Remember, SHALOM HSRAM is MARSH MOLAHS spelled backwords!

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[Shalom]

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)

Yeah.

[Random832]

I imagine the Orwellian-ness is in the Arbitration Committee's job of arbitration, i.e. fair and neutral and dispassionate and informed judgment.

Whether or not that's an accurate assessment, The Register still fails to make it, instead focusing on the mere fact that it's abbreviated to "ArbCom".

[RMHED]

(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 behaved like a twat, got indef blocked and carried on my twatishness and got 'community banned'. I deserved it.
I'm not some poor innocent victim of Wikipedia's 'culture of abuse', the reasons for my banning were entirely legitimate.

Sure I could apologise, but to what end?

Does the WMF board apologise every time its website libels somebody, does it fuck.

[EricBarbour]

Oobie doobie, AN/I has discovered the Register article.

Sam Blacketer resignation article at The Register

I just saw that an article was published today on The Register about Sam Blacketer, and wanted to give you guys a heads-up. TotientDragooned (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a rather good article, actually, thanks for sharing. I particularly like the quote in the final paragraph! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 18:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh! That might explain this (reverted) edit, which had me scratching my head. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

(IMG:http://i583.photobucket.com/albums/ss273/metasonix/Davidcameron.jpg)
What ever happened to politeness in British politics?

[A Horse With No Name]

(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 behaved like a twat, got indef blocked and carried on my twatishness and got 'community banned'. I deserved it.
I'm not some poor innocent victim of Wikipedia's 'culture of abuse', the reasons for my banning were entirely legitimate.

Sure I could apologise, but to what end?

Does the WMF board apologise every time its website libels somebody, does it fuck.

Yes, but RHMED, your vandalism was hilarious. Most vandals are sneaky bores. You were a bold, brazen bull on a rampage. We need more like you! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

I wonder how ArbCom is going to top this Sam B. scandal -- maybe we can get Angelina Jolie to ditch Brad Pitt for Newyorkbrad? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Jon Awbrey]

More than two years after the notorious Essjay Scandal, Wikipedia's ruling body still has a weakness for sockpuppetry.

I wasn't aware that the Essjay scandal involved sockpuppetry.

From the standpoint of an outsider, that is, a Normal Person — who doesn't give a fig about Wikipediot hair-splitting — phony identities and puppet agents are pretty much the same thing.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Jon Awbrey]

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) Ever wanted to be Leader of Westminster City Council for the day? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Kevin]

Among cries of recall, he's announced he will stand for reconfirmation on June 15th - retaining the tools until then, but not using them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=292396331

Just like a slap on the wrist, only weaker. This must be part of that "higher standard" Jimbo talked about recently.

[Malleus]

Among cries of recall, he's announced he will stand for reconfirmation on June 15th - retaining the tools until then, but not using them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=292396331

Just like a slap on the wrist, only weaker. This must be part of that "higher standard" Jimbo talked about recently.

He was very careful to say that adminstrators "should be" held to a higher standard, not that they were, or more to the point that they must be. Just more meaningless powderpuff nonsense from the king of powderpuff nonense.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[Milton Roe]

He was very careful to say that adminstrators "should be" held to a higher standard, not that they were, or more to the point that they must be. Just more meaningless powderpuff nonsense from the king of powderpuff nonense.

Oh, I suppose this is not a famous "non-negotiable policy" then. Rather, this must be one of Jimbo's negotiable policies. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

It's so helpful to keep them straight, you know.

[Kevin]

Among cries of recall, he's announced he will stand for reconfirmation on June 15th - retaining the tools until then, but not using them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=292396331

Just like a slap on the wrist, only weaker. This must be part of that "higher standard" Jimbo talked about recently.

He was very careful to say that adminstrators "should be" held to a higher standard, not that they were, or more to the point that they must be. Just more meaningless powderpuff nonsense from the king of powderpuff nonense.

Thankfully, arbcom have now indicated how they interpret that "higher standard", so that the rest of us can measure ourselves.

[Milton Roe]

I imagine the Orwellian-ness is in the Arbitration Committee's job of arbitration, i.e. fair and neutral and dispassionate and informed judgment.

Whether or not that's an accurate assessment, The Register still fails to make it, instead focusing on the mere fact that it's abbreviated to "ArbCom".

Which is silly. It's not like they named the committee Minitrue. Semi-abbreviations by themselves are hardly Orwellian. As well claim Orwellian overtones in Microsoft, Gitmo, Interpol, or Gestapo.

Okay, you don't like those. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) supply your own example. I think we're looking for things called "initialisms" or partial portmanteaus. There are plenty of benign ones. I'm just short of them right now.

Comsat!

[bambi]

This 2005 article about Boothroyd includes a nice picture.

[Malleus]

He was very careful to say that adminstrators "should be" held to a higher standard, not that they were, or more to the point that they must be. Just more meaningless powderpuff nonsense from the king of powderpuff nonense.

Oh, I suppose this is not a famous "non-negotiable policy" then. Rather, this must be one of Jimbo's negotiable policies. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

It's so helpful to keep them straight, you know.

I occasionally wonder if some are deliberately evasive and ambiguous in their pronouncements, or whether they really believe that everyone else is just too stupid to notice. Naturally though I always "assume good faith" when these heretical thoughts enter my mind, and so I dismiss them.

[sbrown]

Its very simple. If Jimbo likes you then you can do whatever you want and he has no problem with it. Thats the only fixed policy there is.

[Snowey]

The David Boothroyd article returns, including The Register's article on his Wikipedia activities (he edited Conservative Party members' articles) and with even more additional media sources than before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Boothroyd

An AfD was filed by MZMcBride only 30 minutes after it was re-created:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...3rd_nomination)

The Register's article was authored by one Cade Metz. Any information on this person?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/26/wi...ter_councillor/

This post has been edited by Snowey:

[Milton Roe]

The Register's article was authored by one Cade Metz. Any information on this person?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/26/wi...ter_councillor/

All I know is that as a source, El Reg is not considered reliable. As in, cannot be relied on to be completely clueless journalistic suckups to Jimbo.

How disappointing. I'm sure the NYT has much better and more informed coverage of Wikipedia than some little Bay Area rag.

What, they don't? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Something's out of kilter with the universe then, as WP assures me that sources like the NYT and Washington Post always do better at this sort of thing.

Oh, wait-- I forgot: WP is not itself a reliable source (RS) for this kind of thing. In fact, it says so, itself. Though, um, that also means it's not a reliable source for its own assertion that it's not a reliable source. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) Right?

This is making my noggin hurt.

[Snowey]

Snagged this to a text document before the speedy deletion happened:

CODE

'''David Boothroyd''' (born 9 November 1972) is a [[councillor]] for [[Westminster]]'s [[Westbourne]] ward.  He previously worked for [[John Battle]], MP for [[Leeds West]], and was as a research assistant for [[Ian Lucas]], MP for [[Wrexham]], after the 2001 general election.  As a member of the council's planning committee, he condemned ordinances prohibiting [[homosexuality|gay]] businesses from flying the [[rainbow flag]]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158645,00.html|title=Rainbow Ruckus|last=Norvell|first=Scott|date=June 06, 2005|publisher=[[Fox News]]|accessdate=2009-05-27}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jun/04/localgovernment.gayrights|title=Council bans gay firms from flying the flag|last=Barkham|first=Patrick|date=4 June 2005|publisher=[[The Guardian]]|accessdate=2009-05-27}}</ref> and once ordered the removal of [[graffiti]] by well-known British artist [[Banksy]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1854616,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics|title=Banksy Defends His Guerrilla Graffiti Art|last=Logan|first=Liz|date=29 October 2008|publisher=[[Time.com]]|accessdate=2009-05-27}}</ref>

He is the Head of Research and Office for [http://www.indigopublicaffairs.com/ Indigo Public Affairs], a company specialising in urban regeneration schemes and lobbying for planning consent, where he edited the company elections blog and councils list.

He created controversy in 2009 when it was discovered that he edited [[Wikipedia]] under the user names '''Dbiv''', '''Fys''', and '''Sam Blacketer''' and eventually became part of the site's policy-enforcing Arbitration Committee.  A [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour Party]] member, Boothroyd drew attention for having used [[sockpuppet|sockpuppets]] in the course of obtaining his position and for having edited the article of [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative Party]] leader [[David Cameron]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/26/wikipedia_westminster_councillor/|title=Sockpuppeting British politico resigns from Wikisupremecourt|last=Metz|first=Cade|date=26 May 2009|publisher=[[The Register]]|accessdate=2009-05-27}}</ref>

He is the author of ''United Kingdom Election Results'' and ''Politico's Guide to The History of British Political Parties'', a guide to British elections since 1832.

==See also==
*[[Essjay controversy]]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://www.election.demon.co.uk/ United Kingdom Election Results], Boothroyd's personal web site
*[http://www.westminster.gov.uk/councilgovernmentanddemocracy/councils/contactsconsultationandfeedback/councillors/cllr.cfm?cllr_id=6 City of Westminster Councillor Details: David Boothroyd]
*[http://www3.westminster.gov.uk/docstores/publications_store/members/interests/Boothroyd.pdf Members' Register of Interests]

[the fieryangel]

==See also==
*[[Essjay controversy]]

Prediction: this will be morphed into the "Sam Blacketer controversy" article, depending on whether the UK media picks this up or not....

[Snowey]

It seems the editor who re-created the article with the Register piece has been blocked by Jehochman for being too POINTY.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jeh...David_Boothroyd

Jehochman explicitly admits he's fighting the good fight to help "Sam" out:

However, our website with its search-ranking-fu does not need to be made available to those who wish to amplify his problems. The register article is quite public. I don't see how anything is being covered up.

[A User]

Sadly, this episode lends creedence to the claims by conservatives that wikipedia is run by lefties. A number of political blogs have picked up on the story in the last few hours.

http://dizzythinks.net/2009/05/david-boothroyd-busted.html

http://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/david-...bride-no-doubt/

http://www.libdemvoice.org/david-boothroyd...haha-15166.html

[Son of a Yeti]

Among cries of recall, he's announced he will stand for reconfirmation on June 15th - retaining the tools until then, but not using them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=292396331

He actually wrote "in the meantime the tools will be used" and corrected himself to "not used" only after this has been pointed to him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=292398770

A Freudian slip?

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Kato]

Sadly, this episode lends creedence to the claims by conservatives that wikipedia is run by lefties. A number of political blogs have picked up on the story in the last few hours.

Boothroyd wasn't exactly a "leftie". He was a New-Labour footsoldier and staunch Blairite with a characteristic "centrist" view.

He spent much of his early time on WP defending Tony Blair and attacking classical leftist figures like George Galloway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=146095754

Nonsense, it's absolutely clear George Galloway is on the far left and your motive in trying to put across your own views is now increasingly transparent. Opposition to the liberation of Iraq is not in and of itself characteristic of the far left absent any other information, but George Galloway goes much further: eulogizing Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, supporting Hizbollah, opposing nuclear weapons, and then leaving aside foreign policy, support for public ownership, opposition to all forms of outsourcing and privatisation, increased public spending on universal welfare benefits, removal of legal limits on the activities of trade unions, etc. I'm not saying any of these policies are wrong. What I am saying is that taken together they are characteristic of a person on the far left of the political spectrum within the UK. I really don't see how any other view can be taken. Where do you see George Galloway comparatively in the UK? Are you as deluded as Oswald Mosley who insisted he was in the centre? [[User:Fys|Fys]]. “[[User:Fys|Ta]] [[Special:Contributions/Fys|fys]] [[User talk:Fys|aym]]”. 09:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Note the phrase "liberation of Iraq", and the claim that removing restrictions on Trade Unions is a "far left" position.

The Labour Party were created by and funded by the Trade Unions since inception. They've come to a pretty pass when its footsoldiers are claiming that support of the Trade Unions is a marginal "far-left" position.

[Peter Damian]

Apologies if this has already noted on this long thread, but am I really seeing this:

01:14, 15 February 2006 Fys (talk | contribs) unblocked "Dbiv (talk | contribs)" ‎ (Yes, I know I am not supposed to do this. Justification 1: Block was wrongly applied. Justification 2: I have a major edit which I am not going to lose come what may. WP:IAR applies)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&page=User:Dbiv

He unblocks himself with his sockpuppet?

And this is even worse:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=67491586

Dbiv unblocks himself as Dbiv.

Dbiv abuses his admin tools
5) After being blocked for a nonexistent 3RR violation, Dbiv used his administrator status to unblock his own account[6], an explicit violation of the blocking policy. During the course of an edit war with Irishpunktom on Peter Tatchell, Dbiv reverted to his preferred version[7] and then protected the article[8], an explicit violation of the protection policy. During the course of his long-term edit war with Irishpunktom, Dbiv has consistently used his administrative rollback tool to revert Irishpunktom's and others' non-vandalism, good faith content edits.[9]

Support:
Dmcdevit·t 03:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Fred Bauder 17:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
SimonP 21:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 18:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Neutralitytalk 19:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Random832]

He unblocks himself with his sockpuppet?

That wasn't a sockpuppet, it was a name change.

And this is even worse:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=67491586

Is referring to the same unblock.

Oh, it gets better - this is (almost certainly) the edit he was trying to save - nothing he couldn't have copied and pasted into notepad for the duration of the block; no complex formatting or rewriting of paragraphs, just adding to a table.

[Peter Damian]

He unblocks himself with his sockpuppet?

That wasn't a sockpuppet, it was a name change.

And this is even worse:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=67491586

Is referring to the same unblock.

Oh, it gets better - this is (almost certainly) the edit he was trying to save - nothing he couldn't have copied and pasted into notepad for the duration of the block; no complex formatting or rewriting of paragraphs, just adding to a table.

Er, but how does he get to retain administrator status with a block record like that. And he got to be admin as both Blacketer and Dbiv/Fys? Don't understand

[Jon Awbrey]

Don't understand

What part of Ignore All Rules do you not understand?

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

[One]

Er, but how does he get to retain administrator status with a block record like that. And he got to be admin as both Blacketer and Dbiv/Fys? Don't understand

No. Didn't you also notice that he lost his bit after this incident? (After uncleverly editing the Arb decision against him.)

He realized that he would probably never again pass RFA as Dbiv, so he set up his Sam Blacketer sock (which he ran concurrently for a time). This account attained sysophood two months after his old account was blocked for incivility (by Viridae, of all people). Less than eight months after that, he flew under the radar onto ArbCom.

Someone should make a FAQ for this. How many people have reached the reasonable but incorrect conclusion that he unblocked his sock? Stupid name changes.

This post has been edited by One:

[Random832]

Someone should make a FAQ for this. How many people have reached the reasonable but incorrect conclusion that he unblocked his sock? Stupid name changes.

The core problem behind this misunderstanding is that block logs were at one time not transferred through account renames, and that's been fixed since then. In a way, it being fixed makes it harder to explain.

If only the log table had a "target id" field - this could be a user id for blocks, and a pageid for other logs that still have similar trouble through page moves. Tracking the history (move logs and protect logs) when a page has been the subject of a naming dispute can be a ridiculous headache.

This post has been edited by Random832:

[Peter Damian]

Er, but how does he get to retain administrator status with a block record like that. And he got to be admin as both Blacketer and Dbiv/Fys? Don't understand

No. Didn't you also notice that he lost his bit after this incident? (After uncleverly editing the Arb decision against him.)

He realized that he would probably never again pass RFA as Dbiv, so he set up his Sam Blacketer sock (which he ran concurrently for a time). This account attained sysophood two months after his old account was blocked for incivility (by Viridae, of all people). Less than eight months after that, he flew under the radar onto ArbCom.

Someone should make a FAQ for this. How many people have reached the reasonable but incorrect conclusion that he unblocked his sock? Stupid name changes.

Thank you for clarifying that. How many people on Wikipedia understand the full extent of this? Looking at the various talk pages, people seem mostly relaxed (except for the usual culprits).

This is funny (from his second RfA):

Support I'll cite the "I thought he already was one" cliche. Based on the answers, I trust Sam's good judgment, and I know he won't act too hastily in a confrontational situation that may arise. YechielMan 03:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Jon Awbrey]

Er, but how does he get to retain administrator status with a block record like that. And he got to be admin as both Blacketer and Dbiv/Fys? Don't understand

No. Didn't you also notice that he lost his bit after this incident? Realizing that he would probably never again pass RFA as Dbiv, he set up his Sam Blacketer sock, which attained sysophood and then flew under the radar onto ArbCom.

Someone should make a FAQ for this. How many people have reached the reasonable but incorrect conclusion that he unblocked his sock? Stupid name changes.

How many people — Normal People — give a rat's arse about Yet Another Wikipediot Rationalization Of Deception?

Zero.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[One]

Er, but how does he get to retain administrator status with a block record like that. And he got to be admin as both Blacketer and Dbiv/Fys? Don't understand

No. Didn't you also notice that he lost his bit after this incident? Realizing that he would probably never again pass RFA as Dbiv, he set up his Sam Blacketer sock, which attained sysophood and then flew under the radar onto ArbCom.

Someone should make a FAQ for this. How many people have reached the reasonable but incorrect conclusion that he unblocked his sock? Stupid name changes.

How many people — Normal People — give a rat's arse about Yet Another Wikipediot Rationalization Of Deception?

Zero.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

I'm not sure who here is rationalizing. I'm not happy about what he did.

He didn't admit to anything before it was clear Tarantino had his number. He never recused from any of the cases he ought to have. In short, I strongly disagree with Coren who is rationalizing this away and singing his praises.

Peter, the quote highlighted in the Register is also interesting:

A: I would want to redraft the proposed principle to make it clearer, but I am in general agreement with it. I think editors should be encouraged to register accounts, and then ideally to stick to one account. The recent incident of 'sleuthing' has caused a great deal of distress to all concerned and while there is a need to check that banned editors have not returned in disguise, there is in general no reason why that cannot take place in the open and by asking the user whose identity with a banned user is suspected, to help explain the circumstances giving rise to suspicion. Sam Blacketer 15:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This post has been edited by One:

[Peter Damian]

Peter, the quote highlighted in the Register is also interesting:

A: I would want to redraft the proposed principle to make it clearer, but I am in general agreement with it. I think editors should be encouraged to register accounts, and then ideally to stick to one account. The recent incident of 'sleuthing' has caused a great deal of distress to all concerned and while there is a need to check that banned editors have not returned in disguise, there is in general no reason why that cannot take place in the open and by asking the user whose identity with a banned user is suspected, to help explain the circumstances giving rise to suspicion. Sam Blacketer 15:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I am basically gobsmacked by this in a way I have never been before, even by the standards of Wikipedia. This guy opined on my RFAR - in a context that makes his hypocrisy unbelievable.

[Hipocrite]

Snagged this to a text document before the speedy deletion happened:

<snipped entire article>

I wonder what this board would do if someone copied the entire text of the Brandt bio over here.

Four legs good, two legs bad.

[The Wales Hunter]

He's up for election next year.

Here are the results from 2006:

http://www3.westminster.gov.uk/docstores/p.../Westbourne.pdf

Although he has a sizeable majority, next year's Westminster City Council elections will probably coincide with the General Election, I expect Boothroyd to lose his seat.

Declaration of interest: I'm a Conservative Party activist in London and the South East

[CharlotteWebb]

* 08:05, 27 May 2009 Jehochman (talk | contribs) deleted "David Boothroyd" ‎ (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion)
* 07:54, 27 May 2009 Jehochman (talk | contribs) deleted "David Boothroyd" ‎ (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Boothroyd (3rd nomination))
* 20:46, 23 May 2009 Jehochman (talk | contribs) deleted "David Boothroyd" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Boothroyd (2nd nomination))

Now usually, arbcom would have a fit if an admin even thought about doing the same thing more than once.

eulogizing Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez

But they Ain't Dead Yet, #*%$@!!

Er, but how does he get to retain administrator status with a block record like that. And he got to be admin as both Blacketer and Dbiv/Fys? Don't understand

Well he passed RFA almost unanimously the first time but lost it a year and a half later (for unblocking himself, and for protecting the Peter Tatchell article following his revert of Irishpunktom's edits). While I haven't studied it at length I'm not aware of any administrative misconduct on his part prior to that.

He passed the second time (despite being opposed by yours truly over something I hardly remember) mostly because nobody knew it wasn't his first rodeo, or because anyone who did know felt he had The Right Stuff and was happy to see him return.

Not sure which case it was, but like I said before I'll get back to you on that.

Support I'll cite the "I thought he already was one" cliche. Based on the answers, I trust Sam's good judgment, and I know he won't act too hastily in a confrontational situation that may arise. YechielMan 03:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL, but some things do make me wonder.

Someone should make a FAQ for this. How many people have reached the reasonable but incorrect conclusion that he unblocked his sock? Stupid name changes.

Yeah, I noticed the incongruity and figured I'd explain it early on but who reads the whole thread, seriously?

If only the log table had a "target id" field - this could be a user id for blocks, and a pageid for other logs that still have similar trouble through page moves. Tracking the history (move logs and protect logs) when a page has been the subject of a naming dispute can be a ridiculous headache.

I think for a page-move there should be two entries, one visible at each title, or at least one entry that somehow shows up in both logs.

As far as I know a pageid can only be used to look up the name of a page that exists (whereas user accounts/id's may be renamed but generally do not stop existing).

The ability to able to protect a red-link, for example, depends on using the title string rather than a page-id... unless you want to pre-emptively assign a number (which I guess the article would inherit if it is ever created?) but even then if the article gets created and moved, it would misrepresent which article-title some admin had originally deemed inappropriate.

I doubt there's an easy answer to this, short of re-writing everything from scratch.

Personally I think it would be less confusing if log entries and such always remained the same regardless of page-moves and renames that people of the future would see things as they actually happened. However that wouldn't work either as a vast number of renames are motivated by privacy concerns (not that this is a very effective way to address them).

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[Shalom]

This is funny (from his second RfA):

Support I'll cite the "I thought he already was one" cliche. Based on the answers, I trust Sam's good judgment, and I know he won't act too hastily in a confrontational situation that may arise. YechielMan 03:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, did I really say that? I'm wiping egg off my face. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) (YechielMan was my original username.)

[Peter Damian]

This is funny (from his second RfA):

Support I'll cite the "I thought he already was one" cliche. Based on the answers, I trust Sam's good judgment, and I know he won't act too hastily in a confrontational situation that may arise. YechielMan 03:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, did I really say that? I'm wiping egg off my face. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) (YechielMan was my original username.)

Well you were right to think he already was one.

[Random832]

* 08:05, 27 May 2009 Jehochman (talk | contribs) deleted "David Boothroyd" ‎ (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion)
* 07:54, 27 May 2009 Jehochman (talk | contribs) deleted "David Boothroyd" ‎ (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Boothroyd (3rd nomination))
* 20:46, 23 May 2009 Jehochman (talk | contribs) deleted "David Boothroyd" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Boothroyd (2nd nomination))

Really? He should know better. A deletion debate that was speedy closed for any reason is not eligible for G4 speedy-re-deletion

I think for a page-move there should be two entries, one visible at each title, or at least one entry that somehow shows up in both logs.

IIRC, It _does_ show up in "both" logs. That's not good enough, since that won't let you get a coherent picture of what's happening if a page is being moved between three or more titles.

This post has been edited by Random832:

[Peter Damian]

There is an excellent ANI thread from February 2007 about Fys' abusive behaviour. Most of it consists in slightly abusive comments in comment boxes, and is rather lame by Damian standards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=107528153 [liar JzG]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=107303125 (idiot)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=107301614 (idiot nss)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=107295308 (Idiot nss, I've selected the important EDMs, and try not to be an idiot in future)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=107206378 (Of course it's notable. Stop being an idiot and read what you're removing.)

But there are lots of accusations of biasing Wikipedia articles to support UK government position, including one on the notorious Gilligan affair.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=107391057

Which prompted one opponent to comment

Everyone has their own political opinions and leanings, and while you certainly don't write articles to say "David Cameron is a Tory idiot", edits such as this [27] unquestionably demonstrate that you have a POV, as the edit is slanted against Gilligan and in favour of the government, certainly reading the evidence from the testimony you linked, it's not consistent with the slant of the article. Neutrality is a lot more subtle than bald political statements, and the presentation of evidence and summaries which appear to be balanced prima facie, but actually slant the reader towards a certain conclusion is actually rather more insidious and effective than overt bias. Nssdfdsfds 13:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how much more of this has been going on?

(PS some very funny PCKB comments on that thread from Guy)

[edit] The Andrew Gilligan article is interesting

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

Here for example

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=103854599

where fys removes the statement that Gilligan's claims turned out to be true, with the comment 'remove rubbish'. And note that he continued to intervene in that article in the Blacketer persona.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[CharlotteWebb]

IIRC, It _does_ show up in "both" logs. That's not good enough, since that won't let you get a coherent picture of what's happening if a page is being moved between three or more titles.

No, the action appears only when the log is filtered by the title from which the page was moved, not the title to which it was moved.

Compare the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...otball_(soccer)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...iation_football

Same thing with user-renaming. The log entry is associated only with what the title of the person's former user-page.

This shows the rename
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...User:Balloonman
But this does not
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...I%27m_Spartacus!

Strangely the user-rights log has been re-attributed:

*02:40, 23 August 2007 Deskana (talk | contribs) changed rights for User:I'm Spartacus! from (none) to Administrators ‎ (per Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Balloonman)

Things like this may leave historians retorting "wtf he promoted the wrong guy" (seems like Deskana's always screwing up somewhere (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif))

Point is the logging system is inconsistent all-around, but nobody can agree on how to fix it.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[Peter Damian]

And here on the David Kelly article

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=104716069

he alters

"Kelly did not believe Iraq had retained biological weapons after the end of inspections. "

to "Kelly believed it was most likely that Iraq had retained biological weapons after the end of inspections. "

This may be true. Are we comfortable with people involved in UK government editing articles pseudonymously to present that government's case in a favourable light? Are we comfortable with them being elected pseudonymously to one of the most powerful committees on the eighth biggest propaganda site in the world? Silly question actually.

And this

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=104716069

has the comment "Clearout some rubbish and POV, the David Kelly conspiracy people are almost as bad as the '9-11 truth'ers)"

Sure, I hate conspiracy theorists as much as the next person, but this surely has to be some great ammunition for their cause.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Kato]

Here for example

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=103854599

where fys removes the statement that Gilligan's claims turned out to be true, with the comment 'remove rubbish'. And note that he continued to intervene in that article in the Blacketer persona.

Well Boothroyd was a blatant Blairite who supported the war, but removing that crap is not controversial. The idea was that Wikipedia articles were meant to represent "encyclopedic" explanations, and that extract clearly failed.

[Peter Damian]

Here for example

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=103854599

where fys removes the statement that Gilligan's claims turned out to be true, with the comment 'remove rubbish'. And note that he continued to intervene in that article in the Blacketer persona.

Well Boothroyd was a blatant Blairite who supported the war, but removing that crap is not controversial. The idea was that Wikipedia articles were meant to represent "encyclopedic" explanations, and that extract clearly failed.

As you see from my subsequent edits to my post, I agree entirely - the edits he removed look like pure conspiracy theory. But to a conspiracy theorist - now knowing his identity - what does that look like?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Kato]

As you see from my subsequent edits to my post, I agree entirely - the edits he removed look like pure conspiracy theory. But to a conspiracy theorist - now knowing his identity - what does that look like?

The removed edit I was talking about wasn't a conspiracy theory - it was true. Gilligan was right. But it was poorly written and subjective, that's all, and deserved to be canned.

[Milton Roe]

It seems the editor who re-created the article with the Register piece has been blocked by Jehochman for being too POINTY.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jeh...David_Boothroyd

Jehochman explicitly admits he's fighting the good fight to help "Sam" out:

However, our website with its search-ranking-fu does not need to be made available to those who wish to amplify his problems. The register article is quite public. I don't see how anything is being covered up.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif) Say, do any of the WP admins posting here realize this problem about WP's google search-ranking being made available to amplify people's PROBLEMS? One/CHL, do you know anything about this? Lar?

Holy shit. Glad you're working there to stomp this out before it becomes a problem, Jehochman. Reminds me a lot about Twain's story of the fire at the gunpowder factory where somebody drops a lighted cigar and they burn up nearly a bushel before they can put it out.

So good on you. And you might let Jimbo know there that, in theory, WP can be used for defamation, AS WELL AS GOOD. It's a shocker, and a very new concern, but--- hey--- creativity is what we expect from you, so probably you'll eventually get a hearing.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Peter Damian]

As you see from my subsequent edits to my post, I agree entirely - the edits he removed look like pure conspiracy theory. But to a conspiracy theorist - now knowing his identity - what does that look like?

The bit I was talking about wasn't a conspiracy theory - it was true. Gilligan was right. But it was poorly written and subjective, that's all, and deserved to be canned.

And I agree with that too. But my point still applies.

[Kato]

As you see from my subsequent edits to my post, I agree entirely - the edits he removed look like pure conspiracy theory. But to a conspiracy theorist - now knowing his identity - what does that look like?

The bit I was talking about wasn't a conspiracy theory - it was true. Gilligan was right. But it was poorly written and subjective, that's all, and deserved to be canned.

And I agree with that too. But my point still applies.

The thing is that most of Boothroyd's edits were using the name Dbiv, and he clearly stated who he was on his user page. He was quite open about it, and his involvement in Labour politics.

Due to all these confusing name changes, it probably looks worse now than it did then. But keep in mind that most of his edits to those Labour articles were made transparently and weren't covert propaganda exercises. No matter what they look like now.

[Peter Damian]

Due to all these confusing name changes, it probably looks worse now than it did then. But keep in mind that most of his edits to those Labour articles were made transparently and weren't covert propaganda exercises. No matter what they look like now.

Actually I am confused now. Are you saying those edits I linked to and appear to be by 'fys' were at the time visibly by Boothroyd?

[edit] I have looked at User:dbiv history and also User:fys - where does it identify him explicitly with Boothroyd?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Milton Roe]

Due to all these confusing name changes, it probably looks worse now than it did then. But keep in mind that most of his edits to those Labour articles were made transparently and weren't covert propaganda exercises. No matter what they look like now.

Actually I am confused now. Are you saying those edits I linked to and appear to be by 'fys' were at the time visibly by Boothroyd?

[edit] I have looked at User:dbiv history and also User:fys - where does it identify him explicitly with Boothroyd?

No, no. It was apparent to everybody at the time that Dbiv and Fys were the same person-- that name change from Dbiv to Fys was done in the open, and only looked funny latter when the software changed some instances of the username and not others (that was how many people, including myself, go the idea that one of them had deblocked his own sock-- instead he deblocked himself). Nobody connected them with the old user:David Boothroyd (so far as I can tell). And certainly not with user:Sam Blacketer until Tarantino's work.

[Random832]

Due to all these confusing name changes, it probably looks worse now than it did then. But keep in mind that most of his edits to those Labour articles were made transparently and weren't covert propaganda exercises. No matter what they look like now.

Actually I am confused now. Are you saying those edits I linked to and appear to be by 'fys' were at the time visibly by Boothroyd?

[edit] I have looked at User:dbiv history and also User:fys - where does it identify him explicitly with Boothroyd?

The point Kato is trying to make is: then, there was no User:Fys.

The log linking the two is here.

User renaming has had a messed-up half-implementation for a while - it's better now than it was at the time (I believe the block log in question would have had both sides updated if the rename were done today)

This post has been edited by Random832:

[CharlotteWebb]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=104716069

Wonder what kind of client software he was using. It seems to be unable to handle letters with so much as an acute accent. See where he changes "Bahá'í" to "Bah�'�". Mine tells me this is a "U+FFFD replacement character".

[edit] I have looked at User:dbiv history and also User:fys - where does it identify him explicitly with Boothroyd?

He acknowledged this in 2005.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...David_Boothroyd

I am nominating this article about [[User:Dbiv|myself]] for deletion as I don't think I make the notability criteria (although possibly verging on them). However I reserve the right to become notable in the future. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 22:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I think "IV" means "the fourth".

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[thekohser]

I wish David Boothroyd had replied to my e-mails to him, asking him to clarify (now) his past position that described my business and my clients as being "not ethical".

Oh, well. I'll keep tabs on him in other ways, I guess. This will be an interesting SEO project for me.

[Random832]

Wonder what kind of client software he was using. It seems to be unable to handle letters with so much as an acute accent. See where he changes "Bahá'í" to "Bah�'�". Mine tells me this is a "U+FFFD replacement character".

Netscape 4, almost certainly. From what I've read (before my time) this was a very common problem when WP started using Unicode - Mediawiki actually has a special check to block such edits (IIRC, when a known problem browser requests an edit form, a hidden element is included, and if it messes up its contents in this way an error message is returned. And it tries to use HTML escape codes to make those chars survive)

This post has been edited by Random832:

[TungstenCarbide]

I wish David Boothroyd had replied to my e-mails to him, asking him to clarify (now) his past position that described my business and my clients as being "not ethical".

Oh, well. I'll keep tabs on him in other ways, I guess. This will be an interesting SEO project for me.

Your article should mention that he lost his administrator status then regained it using a sockpuppet.

[tarantino]

Ottava Rima says at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ikipedia_Review

That "exposure", if and only if it was true, was a call for personal information to be revealed about the actual person and had nothing to do with sock puppetry. One of the members claimed to have an idea of who his previous account was, but they didn't bother to reveal it. So, that undermines any claims that the site can be used for the good. Instead, it was to compromise privacy and privacy only. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The thread started because I thought there was something wrong with arb account "Sam Blacketer" and it was obvious he was hiding something.

I knew who he was nine days ago Otta boy, and I knew that if I said I knew, "Sam" and/or the English Wikipedia community would eventually come clean.

[Kato]

Due to all these confusing name changes, it probably looks worse now than it did then. But keep in mind that most of his edits to those Labour articles were made transparently and weren't covert propaganda exercises. No matter what they look like now.

Actually I am confused now. Are you saying those edits I linked to and appear to be by 'fys' were at the time visibly by Boothroyd?

[edit] I have looked at User:dbiv history and also User:fys - where does it identify him explicitly with Boothroyd?

The point Kato is trying to make is: then, there was no User:Fys.

The log linking the two is here.

User renaming has had a messed-up half-implementation for a while - it's better now than it was at the time (I believe the block log in question would have had both sides updated if the rename were done today)

Yes. That's basically it. I remember seeing political edits by this guy 3-4 years ago under the name Dbiv which linked to a very clear biography on his user page. He was very open about the fact he was a Labour Councillor etc - until the arbcom incident in 2007, at which point he obviously ducked out and changed name.

Much as we'd like to relish an arbitrator falling down the stairs, his behavior wasn't as sinister as it might seem in retrospect. And this is due to the software renaming his edits. At the time he made many of his controversial political edits, they were made in his real name. They've been changed to Fys retrospectively.

[Peter Damian]

Yes. That's basically it. I remember seeing political edits by this guy 3-4 years ago under the name Dbiv which linked to a very clear biography on his user page. He was very open about the fact he was a Labour Councillor etc - until the arbcom incident in 2007, at which point he obviously ducked out and changed name.

Much as we'd like to relish an arbitrator falling down the stairs, his behavior wasn't as sinister as it might seem in retrospect. And this is due to the software renaming his edits. At the time he made many of his controversial political edits, they were made in his real name. They've been changed to Fys retrospectively.

I'm still confused because, if you look at my post, I did say I checked out the history of User:DBiv, meaning the user page. It doesn't say anything about who or what he is (I may be mistaken).

[sbrown]

Is this the same Fys?

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...v&oldid=1111291

"One rule that this does not apply to is that [[WP:ADMIN|administrators]] must not use their powers to unblock themselves, however unjustified the block was."

Theres someone called Fys on several sites.

[Eva Destruction]

Yes. That's basically it. I remember seeing political edits by this guy 3-4 years ago under the name Dbiv which linked to a very clear biography on his user page. He was very open about the fact he was a Labour Councillor etc - until the arbcom incident in 2007, at which point he obviously ducked out and changed name.

Much as we'd like to relish an arbitrator falling down the stairs, his behavior wasn't as sinister as it might seem in retrospect. And this is due to the software renaming his edits. At the time he made many of his controversial political edits, they were made in his real name. They've been changed to Fys retrospectively.

I'm still confused because, if you look at my post, I did say I checked out the history of User:DBiv, meaning the user page. It doesn't say anything about who or what he is (I may be mistaken).

The revisions are deleted & I won't undelete them under the circumstances, but I can confirm that his userpage did contain a full admission of who he was (hint).

[Kato]

Yes. That's basically it. I remember seeing political edits by this guy 3-4 years ago under the name Dbiv which linked to a very clear biography on his user page. He was very open about the fact he was a Labour Councillor etc - until the arbcom incident in 2007, at which point he obviously ducked out and changed name.

Much as we'd like to relish an arbitrator falling down the stairs, his behavior wasn't as sinister as it might seem in retrospect. And this is due to the software renaming his edits. At the time he made many of his controversial political edits, they were made in his real name. They've been changed to Fys retrospectively.

I'm still confused because, if you look at my post, I did say I checked out the history of User:DBiv, meaning the user page. It doesn't say anything about who or what he is (I may be mistaken).

The contribs history has presumably been moved and the old user pages with the info deleted. I remember the old user page quite vividly from some 3-4 years ago, his credentials were interesting and I made a mental note. Brandt also must have noticed because he added the details to Hivemind at least 2 years ago.

The revisions are deleted & I won't undelete them under the circumstances, but I can confirm that his userpage did contain a full admission of who he was (hint).

Thanks. I was starting to doubt my own memory, but no, he was certainly open about himself and wasn't editing those articles as some kind of covert New Labour propaganda exercise.

[the fieryangel]

In short, I strongly disagree with Coren who is rationalizing this away and singing his praises.

I don't think that Coren has much of a choice but to do that, as we shall see shortly...

(Read my last akahele post for clues about this...)



________________________

Moderator's note: Several posts regarding the nature of Mr. Coren's "off-wiki" activities were moved here, and further speculation about the possibility of pre-Wikipedia contact between Mr. Coren and Mr. Blacketer/Boothroyd on Usenet was deemed to be unproven, or at least insufficient to demonstrate significance. The related material was therefore moved to the tarpit.

This post has been edited by Somey:

[No one of consequence]

No, no. It was apparent to everybody at the time that Dbiv and Fys were the same person-- that name change from Dbiv to Fys was done in the open, and only looked funny latter when the software changed some instances of the username and not others (that was how many people, including myself, go the idea that one of them had deblocked his own sock-- instead he deblocked himself). Nobody connected them with the old user:David Boothroyd (so far as I can tell). And certainly not with user:Sam Blacketer until Tarantino's work.

If I recall correctly, when Dbiv was banned from UK political articles, he created User:David Boothroyd specifically for editing his own biography, in case he needed to make corrections or remove false material, and in defiance of the topic ban. Everyone (or at least, many people) knew this at the time, and no one really objected. No admin would enforce the topic ban, and eventually Arbcom had to rescind it.

[MBisanz]

Is this the same Fys?

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...v&oldid=1111291

"One rule that this does not apply to is that [[WP:ADMIN|administrators]] must not use their powers to unblock themselves, however unjustified the block was."

Theres someone called Fys on several sites.

If you look at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...h=-1&tagfilter= it is clear that the page was imported to Meta in 2008 and the edit in question was made in 2006, so it would have been enwiki User:Fys making that edit.

[Random832]

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...v&oldid=1111291
"One rule that this does not apply to is that [[WP:ADMIN|administrators]] must not use their powers to unblock themselves, however unjustified the block was."

If you look at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...h=-1&tagfilter= it is clear that the page was imported to Meta in 2008 and the edit in question was made in 2006, so it would have been enwiki User:Fys making that edit.

My bet would be that that was a WP:POINT edit made in response to being 'unreasonably' criticized/punished for unblocking himself for an incorrect 3RR count. There's no other reason for including language like "however unjustified the block was" in a first draft.

This post has been edited by Random832:

[thekohser]

I wish David Boothroyd had replied to my e-mails to him, asking him to clarify (now) his past position that described my business and my clients as being "not ethical".

Oh, well. I'll keep tabs on him in other ways, I guess. This will be an interesting SEO project for me.

Your article should mention that he lost his administrator status then regained it using a sockpuppet.

I fixed it up really nice, with an additional GFDL vignette about the "Sick as a parrot" affair, plus some juicy semantic tags. Currently, my page is #43 in Google for search on "Sam Blacketer". Not in the top 500 for "David Boothroyd", but heck, the page is just a few hours old.

[Daniel Brandt]

I tried Google and WR search on Risker--didn't see much of anything.
Very low profile. RFA reveals nothing, except she's a she, and evidently
like James Blunt a lot. (She keeps such a low profile, not many people
even knew her gender.)

Bah. Either Arbcom will devise some kind of proper "policy" about their own members,
or things will stagger along as before. Daniel can out her if he wishes, though it might
not serve any useful purpose.

Screw this, I'm tired of looking thru logs.

Risker (arbcom, Abuse Filter editor, checkuser, oversight, administrator) will be a tough one to crack. She is over 35 years old and lives in southern Ontario in Canada. She said this on a Gwen_Gale talk page (archive1): "Incidentally, I don't use my own name when editing here because I am the only person in North America with this name, and thus have genuine concerns about my privacy."

That's about all I can find.

By the way, using the en.wikipedia.org search with certain boxes checked can be educational. I like these boxes most: User and User talk, Wikpedia and Wikipedia talk, and the File box for credits on images.

[A User]

Well Boothroyd was a blatant Blairite

You can say that again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=141030114

[RMHED]

I tried Google and WR search on Risker--didn't see much of anything.
Very low profile. RFA reveals nothing, except she's a she, and evidently
like James Blunt a lot. (She keeps such a low profile, not many people
even knew her gender.)

Bah. Either Arbcom will devise some kind of proper "policy" about their own members,
or things will stagger along as before. Daniel can out her if he wishes, though it might
not serve any useful purpose.

Screw this, I'm tired of looking thru logs.

Risker (arbcom, Abuse Filter editor, checkuser, oversight, administrator) will be a tough one to crack. She is over 35 years old and lives in southern Ontario in Canada. She said this on a Gwen_Gale talk page (archive1): "Incidentally, I don't use my own name when editing here because I am the only person in North America with this name, and thus have genuine concerns about my privacy."

That's about all I can find.

By the way, using the en.wikipedia.org search with certain boxes checked can be educational. I like these boxes most: User and User talk, Wikpedia and Wikipedia talk, and the File box for credits on images.

I reckon I know Risker's RL identity, but I can see no good reason to reveal it.

[CharlotteWebb]

If I recall correctly, when Dbiv was banned from UK political articles.

Nah, only the one about Peter Tatchell.

and the File box for credits on images.

Yes there are those for whom privacy concerns are trumped by attribution hunger and ego stoking (stroking?). Staggering trend, I'll admit.

I'm still confused because, if you look at my post, I did say I checked out the history of User:DBiv, meaning the user page. It doesn't say anything about who or what he is (I may be mistaken).

He admitted this on several other WP pages which have not been deleted, such as the first AFD of the article about him

[Peter Damian]

Blacketer is involved or employed by the 'public relations' firm Indigo Public Affairs which 'lobbies' for controversial planning applications in the UK. Interesting that this firm was involved in the controversial 'Megamosque' proposal recently. See this

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/f...icle1816451.ece

and there is a corresponding Wikipedia article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbey_Mills_Mosque

I checked on this and related articles for any evidence of fys/dbiv/blacketer editing but there wasn't any. Might be worth a bit more digging around, though. The organisation behind the mosque is highly controversial. See e.g.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablighi_Jama...ns_of_terrorism

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Kato]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablighi_Jama...ns_of_terrorism

I hadn't seen that article before - worth a new thread. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

Those kinds of articles are deliberately created to discredit and are one of Wikipedia's worst features.

[CharlotteWebb]

I reckon I know Risker's RL identity, but I can see no good reason to reveal it.

That's the thing about admitting that you know a secret. You are now likely to be blamed if somebody else reveals it. There are users about whom I know things which aren't generally known. All I can do is ask "Why the hell did you tell me that?" then sweat bullets when somebody else announces the same thing based on their own research, because they knew that I knew, no matter how much I wished I didn't. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Jon Awbrey]

I reckon I know Risker's RL identity, but I can see no good reason to reveal it.

That's the thing about admitting that you know a secret. You are now likely to be blamed if somebody else reveals it. There are users about whom I know things which aren't generally known. All I can do is ask "Why the hell did you tell me that?" then sweat bullets when somebody else announces the same thing based on their own research, because they knew that I knew, no matter how much I wished I didn't. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

D-i-n-g ! D-i-i-n-g ! ! D-i-i-i-n-g ! ! !

Now quit your gabbin' and note passin' or you're gonna be late for Home Room.

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[CharlotteWebb]

Now quit your gabbin' and note passin' or you're gonna be late for Home Room.

Alrighty then. If one receives a passed note they can always say "I threw it away without reading it" but nobody ever believes that (even if it is true) so what's the point. Might as well go ahead and read it.

A big-ol' t-shirt that said "don't pass me any notes, I don't wanna hear it" might not get anyone sent to the principal's office, only to the shrink's office with all the other anti-social problem-childs for an all-you-can-eat buffet of happy-pills and sensitivity training likely to prove more harmful than that which they first sought to avoid.

This derailed train of thought leaves me chuckling that WP in fact has an admin called "Hall Monitor" (!) which seems like a rather pompous name to register, though possibly a guarantor of success at RFA, like "wow, this clod obviously has The Right Stuff".

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[Mr. Mystery]

I tried Google and WR search on Risker--didn't see much of anything.
Very low profile. RFA reveals nothing, except she's a she, and evidently
like James Blunt a lot. (She keeps such a low profile, not many people
even knew her gender.)

Bah. Either Arbcom will devise some kind of proper "policy" about their own members,
or things will stagger along as before. Daniel can out her if he wishes, though it might
not serve any useful purpose.

Screw this, I'm tired of looking thru logs.

Risker (arbcom, Abuse Filter editor, checkuser, oversight, administrator) will be a tough one to crack. She is over 35 years old and lives in southern Ontario in Canada. She said this on a Gwen_Gale talk page (archive1): "Incidentally, I don't use my own name when editing here because I am the only person in North America with this name, and thus have genuine concerns about my privacy."

That's about all I can find.

By the way, using the en.wikipedia.org search with certain boxes checked can be educational. I like these boxes most: User and User talk, Wikpedia and Wikipedia talk, and the File box for credits on images.

Using my sharply honed linguistic analysis skills, I've long suspected Risker of being a rather prominent anon commentator on this board. I generally like the work she's been doing, with both accounts, so I haven't tried to substantiate this.

[gomi]

Pardon my ignorance of British Parliamentary affairs, but has anyone enquired as to Mr. "Blacketer"s relationship (if any) with Betty Boothroyd (T-H-L-K-D)? She was the former speaker of the Commons, and apparently quite formidable, according to this week's Economist (on the subject of her successor's defrocking) and is now a Baroness in the House of Lords.

Blacketer, in his various incarnations, seems to have steered largely clear of her article, with this exception of this minor edit.

[Eva Destruction]

Pardon my ignorance of British Parliamentary affairs, but has anyone enquired as to Mr. "Blacketer"s relationship (if any) with Betty Boothroyd (T-H-L-K-D)? She was the former speaker of the Commons, and apparently quite formidable, according to this week's Economist (on the subject of her successor's defrocking) and is now a Baroness in the House of Lords.

Blacketer, in his various incarnations, seems to have steered largely clear of her article, with this exception of this minor edit.

I assume unrelated or only distantly related; Betty Boothroyd's from Yorkshire and has no kids. It's not a particularly uncommon name.

[Peter Damian]

Pardon my ignorance of British Parliamentary affairs, but has anyone enquired as to Mr. "Blacketer"s relationship (if any) with Betty Boothroyd (T-H-L-K-D)? She was the former speaker of the Commons, and apparently quite formidable, according to this week's Economist (on the subject of her successor's defrocking) and is now a Baroness in the House of Lords.

Blacketer, in his various incarnations, seems to have steered largely clear of her article, with this exception of this minor edit.

I assume unrelated or only distantly related; Betty Boothroyd's from Yorkshire and has no kids. It's not a particularly uncommon name.

Correct. Although David Boothroyd grew up in Leeds.

[sbrown]

I assume unrelated or only distantly related; Betty Boothroyd's from Yorkshire and has no kids. It's not a particularly uncommon name.

Theres a well-known writer called Basil Boothroyd (who has no wikipeida article).

[Kato]

Pardon my ignorance of British Parliamentary affairs, but has anyone enquired as to Mr. "Blacketer"s relationship (if any) with Betty Boothroyd (T-H-L-K-D)? She was the former speaker of the Commons, and apparently quite formidable, according to this week's Economist (on the subject of her successor's defrocking) and is now a Baroness in the House of Lords.

Blacketer, in his various incarnations, seems to have steered largely clear of her article, with this exception of this minor edit.

I assume unrelated or only distantly related; Betty Boothroyd's from Yorkshire and has no kids. It's not a particularly uncommon name.

Correct. Although David Boothroyd grew up in Leeds.

It's a very common Yorkshire name. I wouldn't read too much into that.

[EricBarbour]

And just to drag this back on-topic.....

It turns out that British political bloggers found out about Boothroyd's resignation.
Having a field day, etc........Here are some links.

Anna Raccoon summed it up nicely.

These people are the most insidious, devious, sinister, control freaks in existence.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[thekohser]

I fixed it up really nice, with an additional GFDL vignette about the "Sick as a parrot" affair, plus some juicy semantic tags. Currently, my page is #43 in Google for search on "Sam Blacketer". Not in the top 500 for "David Boothroyd", but heck, the page is just a few hours old.

What a difference a day makes.

I got an e-mail from Boothroyd (but still signing his "name" as Sam Blacketer), with one of those half-apologies-that-isn't-an-apology lines -- that he's sorry if his comments about Wikipedia Review being unethical bothered me. I instructed him how to convey a proper apology, so we'll see how that goes.

Meanwhile, a Google search for:

Sam Blacketer = my page on Wikipedia Review is #15 out of 9,940

"Sam Blacketer" = #14 out of 83

David Boothroyd = #23 out of 139,000

"David Boothroyd" = #25 out of 12,200

David Boothroyd sockpuppet = #1 out of 64

David Boothroyd scandal = #1 out of 6,250

David Boothroyd London = #4 out of 47,500

David Boothroyd Westminster = #9 out of 14,100

Anyway, you get the picture. All in less than three days' time.

[Peter Damian]

Coren is another FT2? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

I don't know. I wasn't satisfied by the evidence against FT2 - and thought a lot of it was overblown and came from a whispering campaign against him.

The evidence against FT2 was simply that he had two edits oversighted, and then later lied about it.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Random832]

The evidence against FT2 was simply that he had two edits oversighted, and then later lied about it.

The evidence against FT2 was simply that someone had two edits oversighted, and then later claimed not to know about it.

The charge that he had them oversighted and that he therefore lied are not evidence, they are the things that they are evidence of. Not quite the same thing.

[Snowey]

Looks like a 50/50 split developing at Boothroyd's Deletion Review argument. Think Jehochman would actually try to close it himself?

[tarantino]

Looks like a 50/50 split developing at Boothroyd's Deletion Review argument. Think Jehochman would actually try to close it himself?

I can sympathize with a doofus who doesn't want to be immortalized with a biography on Wikipedia. However wikipedos are are being a tad hypocritical when they simultaneously say he is non-notable and also link to his personal web site over 700 times, because it appears to be an authoritative source on British elections.

[RMHED]

Looks like a 50/50 split developing at Boothroyd's Deletion Review argument. Think Jehochman would actually try to close it himself?

I can sympathize with a doofus who doesn't want to be immortalized with a biography on Wikipedia. However wikipedos are are being a tad hypocritical when they simultaneously say he is non-notable and also link to his personal web site over 700 times, because it appears to be an authoritative source on British elections.

Certainly has a lot more links than this website. Definitely no double standards being applied here then.

[Milton Roe]

I can sympathize with a doofus who doesn't want to be immortalized with a biography on Wikipedia. However wikipedos are are being a tad hypocritical when they simultaneously say he is non-notable and also link to his personal web site over 700 times, because it appears to be an authoritative source on British elections.

A tad hypocritical?? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) I suppose that's the famous Brit understatement. This guy is the king of the make-me-nod (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif) BLP. He's responsible himself for hundreds of them. And as the maker of his very own, Boothroyd totally needs to be the continuing victim of a Bio himself on WP, forever. Or until their policy is changed. Or until evil dark energy makes all the stars disappear and then finally explodes our very atoms. Whichever comes first.

[Snowey]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Del...Log/2009_May_27

The deletion review discussion has fallen off the main WP:DRV index without being closed for or against restoration. Maybe it'll just disappear quietly?

[Zeraeph]

Bl**dy h*ll!!! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

Just dropped by to see how ye all are (Somey, "working out" is SELF HARM - please stop it) and I see this?

That weasel screwed me over (in private) in relation to arbcom in a significant way...can't remember details cos they are on my PC and I am in bed with my laptop (What can I say? George Clooney had a headache.), but I remember being totally freaked out by him...and then convincing myself that I MUST be imagining things, because he came across as SOOOOOOOO respectable, kindly and elderly...

All I can say is, I'd be happier if he was a conservative...I come from an "Old guard" Brit Labour background, going back to WWI, and, frankly, multiple knives in the back are a LOT easier to take when they don't come from your own team...

I'll have to dig up the details tomorrow...or the day after, I have stuff to do...

This post has been edited by Zeraeph:

[A User]

The Independent

"Wikipedia 'sentinel' quits after using alias to alter entries"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/polit...es-1698762.html

[thekohser]

The Independent

"Wikipedia 'sentinel' quits after using alias to alter entries"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/polit...es-1698762.html

It would seem that Boothroyd is now worthy of his own article. And, for that matter (as Tim Usher pointed out to me) Arbitration Committee seems to be article-worthy, as far as the multiple reliable sources go now.

[thekohser]

Time for an update, now that 10 days have passed!

Sam Blacketer = my page on Wikipedia Review is #15 out of 9,940 #16 out of 25,900

"Sam Blacketer" = #14 out of 83 #18 out of 97

David Boothroyd = #23 out of 139,000 #12 out of 176,000

"David Boothroyd" = #25 out of 12,200 #9 out of 35,700

David Boothroyd sockpuppet = #1 out of 64 #1 out of 72

David Boothroyd scandal = #1 out of 6,250 #1 out of 7,740

David Boothroyd London = #4 out of 47,500 #4 out of 75,500

David Boothroyd Westminster = #9 out of 14,100 #8 out of 26,400

Looks like teh Interwebz have turned up the heat on Mr. Boothroyd, with lots and lots more pages relating to these searches. But Wikipedia Review is holding strong or moving up on all but two of them.

[Zeraeph]

Moderator's note: Several off-topic posts alleging a connection to another user of roughly similar background were moved to the tar pit due to a near-total lack of evidence. Members are reminded that speculation is strongly discouraged if it may potentially lead to unpleasant real-life complications for the person(s) being speculated upon, and also that Kool Whip™ Free tastes pretty much the same as regular Kool Whip™, but with almost none of the calories.

__________________

Just a little small cherry for the top of the cake...

http://www3.westminster.gov.uk/docstores/p...s/Boothroyd.pdf

"Members’ Register of Interests
Members are required by law to declare certain interests when they become a
Councillor. These interests include the name of their employer; the addresses of any
land within the borough in which the Member has a beneficial interest or a licence to
occupy; interests in companies and securities in which they have substantial interests
which operate in the borough; and other financial interests. If the home address is
included in the original declaration this has not been reproduced here but is included
in the registration form completed by the Member and available for inspection at City
Hall.
(NB: The background notes about the forms will be available at this point on the
website).
Details of each Councillor’s declarations can be seen during normal office hours by
contacting Mr Mick Steward at Westminster City Hall, 64 Victoria Street, London,
SW1E 6QP.
For questions about the register of any other information, please telephone Mr Mick
Steward, Deputy Head of the Cabinet, Committee and Scrutiny"


Even though, question 2. specifically asks that you list:

"Any body:
(a) exercising functions of a public nature;
(b) directed to charitable purposes, or
© one of whose principal purposes includes the influence of public opinion
or policy (including any political party or trade union)"
of which you are a Member or in a position of general control or management"

Wikipedia is not mentioned at all by Councillor David Boothroyd.

Oh dear...

Zed

[GlassBeadGame]

Just a little small cherry for the top of the cake...

http://www3.westminster.gov.uk/docstores/p...s/Boothroyd.pdf

"Members’ Register of Interests
Members are required by law to declare certain interests when they become a
Councillor. These interests include the name of their employer; the addresses of any
land within the borough in which the Member has a beneficial interest or a licence to
occupy; interests in companies and securities in which they have substantial interests
which operate in the borough; and other financial interests. If the home address is
included in the original declaration this has not been reproduced here but is included
in the registration form completed by the Member and available for inspection at City
Hall.
(NB: The background notes about the forms will be available at this point on the
website).
Details of each Councillor’s declarations can be seen during normal office hours by
contacting Mr Mick Steward at Westminster City Hall, 64 Victoria Street, London,
SW1E 6QP.
For questions about the register of any other information, please telephone Mr Mick
Steward, Deputy Head of the Cabinet, Committee and Scrutiny"


Even though, question 2. specifically asks that you list:

"Any body:
(a) exercising functions of a public nature;
(b) directed to charitable purposes, or
© one of whose principal purposes includes the influence of public opinion
or policy (including any political party or trade union)"
of which you are a Member or in a position of general control or management"

Wikipedia is not mentioned at all by Councillor David Boothroyd.

Oh dear...

Zed

This seems to be taking on aspect of "When Encyclopedias Attack." Violate Wikipedia's user generated "rules" and then Wikipedians go all over the internet and stretch the intent of the rules of other actual real life institutions in order to pursue their revenge.

[Zeraeph]

This seems to be taking on aspect of "When Encyclopedias Attack." Violate Wikipedia's user generated "rules" and then Wikipedians go all over the internet and stretch the intent of the rules of other actual real life institutions in order to pursue their revenge.

Despite the fact that you you have an intense personal dislike of me for no rational reason, and feel emotionally threatened whenever I am proven right, the fact remains that under British Law (without the faintest degree of stretch to spirit, or letter) Boothroyd was obliged, just like all elected representatives, to list any such interests, and knowing this, he chose not to do so...

His choice, his responsibility, his crime...

As he has already behaved appallingly to me personally, I really don't see any reason why I should volunteer to become an "accomplice after the fact" by hiding that...do you?

This post has been edited by Zeraeph:

[GlassBeadGame]

This seems to be taking on aspect of "When Encyclopedias Attack." Violate Wikipedia's user generated "rules" and then Wikipedians go all over the internet and stretch the intent of the rules of other actual real life institutions in order to pursue their revenge.

Despite the fact that you you have an intense personal dislike of me for no rational reason, and feel emotionally threatened whenever I am proven right, the fact remains that under British Law Boothroyd was obliged, just like all elected representatives, to list any such interests, and knowing this, he chose not to do so...

His choice, his responsibility, his crime...

As he has already behaved appallingly to me personally, I really don't see any reason why I should volunteer to become an "accomplice after the fact" by hiding that...do you?

I have no idea who you are, even in the context of posting here, so don't take anything personal. I doubt if "dong stuff on Wikipedia" was considered to be the kind of thing they are talking about. But maybe if you think Wikipedia is the be all and end all you might read it otherwise. I'm sure that this guy's conduct on Wikipedia was bad. He seemed to have carried out his own "When Encyclopedias Attack" against Greg. His article on MWB is probably not that site's best moment even if he has it coming, threw the first stone and deserves no better. Wikipedia is a revenge engine that just won't stop. The only sane response to anyone breaking Wikipedia's rules is "who cares." Hold people responsible for the harm they do to innocent outsiders, not internal Wikipedian nonsense.

[Kato]

Boothroyd was naughty on Wikipedia when he changed name and rose all the way to the Arbcom. Which is to be expected on somewhere as lax as WP. But it needs to be stressed that though he was an asshole under his Dbiv moniker, he was very open about himself and wasn't really manipulating content. He only changed name after falling afoul of that strange Arbcom case, when he used the "right to vanish" feature. His later edits to the David Cameron article, which have drawn the ire of the media, were actually uncontroversial.

The media attention on him here is more related to the sustained attack on the Labour government which is dominating the news at the moment. There's a lot of spin on this story to make Boothroyd and Labour look bad, which is typical of the current climate.

The fact that Boothroyd violated some crap rule on Wikipedia means very little really. Wikipedia is ripe for such exploitation, and it is Wikipedia that should take the blame - not Boothroyd.

This post has been edited by Somey:

[One]

This seems to be taking on aspect of "When Encyclopedias Attack." Violate Wikipedia's user generated "rules" and then Wikipedians go all over the internet and stretch the intent of the rules of other actual real life institutions in order to pursue their revenge.

Despite the fact that you you have an intense personal dislike of me for no rational reason, and feel emotionally threatened whenever I am proven right, the fact remains that under British Law (without the faintest degree of stretch to spirit, or letter) Boothroyd was obliged, just like all elected representatives, to list any such interests, and knowing this, he chose not to do so...

His choice, his responsibility, his crime...

As he has already behaved appallingly to me personally, I really don't see any reason why I should volunteer to become an "accomplice after the fact" by hiding that...do you?

Garbage. This was actually brought up when the scandal broke. Someone brought this up almost two weeks ago, and it appears that the government did not intend for this sort of activity to be declared. They don't care about being a referee in MMORPG baseball. Volunteer moderating an online community is not equivalent to chairing an advocacy organization.

[Zeraeph]

I have no idea who you are, even in the context of posting here...

But you never have, and never will, let that deter you from trying to discredit me at every tiny sliver of opportunity... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Hold people responsible for the harm they do to innocent outsiders, not internal Wikipedian nonsense.

Last time I checked, British Law was not "internal Wikipedian nonsense"...but I could have missed a few updates???

The fact that Boothroyd violated some crap rule on Wikipedia means very little really.

Unfortunately, the "Register of members interests" act UK is NOT just "some crap rule on Wikipedia".

Garbage. This was actually brought up when the scandal broke. Someone brought this up almost two weeks ago, and it appears that the government did not intend for this sort of activity to be declared. They don't care about being a referee in MMORPG baseball. Volunteer moderating an online community is not equivalent to chairing an advocacy organization.

"Any body:
(a) exercising functions of a public nature;
(b) directed to charitable purposes, or
© one of whose principal purposes includes the influence of public opinion
or policy (including any political party or trade union)"
of which you are a Member or in a position of general control or management"

I think the British Government and Judiciary are probably the best people to decide that, not you...

(Ah...another long term fan...how sweet)

BTW the Brits do not have baseball.

[Kato]

Unfortunately, the "Register of members interests" act UK is NOT just "some crap rule on Wikipedia".

The Register of Members interests for Councillors is quite new. It may well cover something like the Arbcom at Wikipedia. Westminster Council's rules state:

http://www.westminster.gov.uk/councilgover...rsinterests.cfm

2. CATEGORY 2 – Other bodies of which you are a Member
You should list your membership of any of the following:

(b) a company, industrial and provident society(s), charity or body directed to charitable purposes of which you are a member. This includes Freemasons, Round Table, Rotary etc and any similar body who carries out a charitable function.

( c ) a body whose principal purpose include the influence of public opinion or policy of which you are a member, which would include a trade union or professional association of which you are a member.

It is certainly a grey area as far as membership of arbcom is concerned. He probably should have either declared it - or (more obviously) not got himself elected to arbcom in the first place.

It is feasible that after using his real name on WP for so long, and getting himself into inevitable scraps that made him disappear originally, he could claim the below.

1. Where you consider that the information relating to any of your personal interests is sensitive information, and your authority’s monitoring officer agrees, you need not include that information when registering that interest, or as the case may be, a change to that interest.

3. “Sensitive information” means information whose availability for inspection by the public creates, or is likely to create, a serious risk that you or a person who lives with you may be subjected to violence or intimidation.

Either way, no one is going to formally pick him up on the matter because the loopholes are too big and easy for him to wriggle through. Both the wording of the code, and the nature of arbcom, are too vague.

This post has been edited by Somey:

[Obesity]

BTW the Brits do not have baseball.

The Brits invented baseball.

And according you to you-know-what, they still play it, infrequently.

[Snowey]

Someone brought this up almost two weeks ago, and it appears that the government did not intend for this sort of activity to be declared. They don't care about being a referee in MMORPG baseball.

An arbitrator comparing Wikipedia to an MMORPG? The irony!

[Sarcasticidealist]

An arbitrator comparing Wikipedia to an MMORPG? The irony!

I don't think "irony" means what you think it means.

[thekohser]

He seemed to have carried out his own "When Encyclopedias Attack" against Greg. His article on MWB is probably not that site's best moment even if he has it coming, threw the first stone and deserves no better.

The policy on Wikipedia Review is that the legal entity or agent thereof may take ownership of the Directory-space article about them. Mr. Boothroyd has asked for modifications to the article, but he has not exercised his take-over privilege, nor has he asked me to take down the page about him. All I got from him was an e-mail with a half-hearted apology for his public comments about my content and transactions being unethical.

"I'm sorry if you were offended by my reference to your business..."

I hate those kinds of see-through apologies.

[Eight]

Yeesh...... This really makes that Colbert bit seem spot on. Should we just combine that thread with this one?

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

[Snowey]

I don't think "irony" means what you think it means.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony

5. an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.
6. the incongruity of this.

Fuck off.

[Sarcasticidealist]

5. an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.
6. the incongruity of this.

Congratulations on the successful operation of a dictionary. Since you didn't get the point the first time, let me try again, most explicitly: how is it remotely unexpected or incongruous for a Wikipedia arbitrator, one of a class of people intimately acquainted with the MMORPG nature of Wikipedia, to describe Wikipedia as an MMORPG?

[Nerd]

The "controversy" now has its own article, created earlier today. On AFD of course. Link

[Peter Damian]

I just noticed the controversy has now reached the Daily Mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11...edia-entry.html

which is significant in its own special way. (Apologies if this has been picked up in another thread).

[dogbiscuit]

I just noticed the controversy has now reached the Daily Mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11...edia-entry.html

which is significant in its own special way. (Apologies if this has been picked up in another thread).

The comments (from the various genders on the Clapham omnibus) are telling that they see the political scandal and not the Wikipedian one, however, there was one that caught my eye:

"although an innocent oversight.'
Innocent............I think not or he wouldn't have used a false name

Does that sum up the typical Wikipedian?

[Snowey]

Oh, the drama. Allegations of "censorship" finally appear!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI...royd_censorship

how is it remotely unexpected or incongruous for a Wikipedia arbitrator, one of a class of people intimately acquainted with the MMORPG nature of Wikipedia, to describe Wikipedia as an MMORPG?

On the one hand, Wikipedia is a very serious project, an encyclopedia that will put Britannica out of business and change the world's access to information. Wikipedia is definitely "WP:NOT" a battleground or a game, says the policy. This is apparently so serious that in extreme cases editors must provide real-life identification via passport scans.

On the other hand, Wikipedia is on the same level as a baseball MMORPG?

Get real.

This post has been edited by Snowey:

[Sarcasticidealist]

On the one hand, Wikipedia is a very serious project, an encyclopedia that will put Britannica out of business and change the world's access to information. Wikipedia is definitely "WP:NOT" a battleground or a game, says the policy.

I can't imagine that any arbitrators believe any of that. I don't see how they could.

This is apparently so serious that in extreme cases editors must provide real-life identification via passport scans.

People who play World of Warcraft need to provide self-identification by way of credit card (I assume, anyway - are there other ways of paying for a subscription?). Also, they're subject to agreed upon terms of service. By your chosen measures, Wikipedia is a good deal less serious than your typical MMORPG.