Sam Blacketer Options Rating

[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: Sun 7th June 2009, 3:32pm

[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: Tue 9th June 2009, 3:22am

[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...

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: Tue 9th June 2009, 3:27am

[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?

[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: Tue 9th June 2009, 8:29pm

[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.