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: Wed 12th November 2008, 3:32am

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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