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

[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?

Or am I way off base?

[tarantino]

Should we call a spade a spade?

Or am I way off base?

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: Fri 22nd May 2009, 3:18pm

[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.