The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Sam Blacketer[edit]

Final (27/77/13). Withdrawn by candidate at 12:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC).

Nomination[edit]

Sam Blacketer (talk · contribs)

Back in May I accepted recall and undertook to go through a new RfA to confirm adminship, the RfA to take place in winter. Looking outside at the snow and feeling the cold it seems that winter is here.

I'm asking that the community vote to support confirmation of my administrator status and I think it is worth saying that that is all this is. It is a debate on whether this user right now and in the future, if given access to tools used by administrators, would damage the encyclopaedia. It is not a debate on all that has gone before, although it's obvious that it is to some extent relevant in supporting opinions in the debate about what might happen in the future. Bearing that in mind, here are 15 good reasons why the community can be entirely confident in voting to confirm grant of administrator tools:

  1. I am a very longterm supporter of the Wikipedia project. 2010 is the seventh year I have been contributing to Wikipedia. Despite some stresses and strains, some of which have tried my patience and some have caused personal embarrassment, I remain committed to helping support the development of a neutral, high-quality encyclopaedia.
  2. Since being reinvented under this user name, there have been no serious complaints about my editing of articles. Indeed it's difficult to find any non-serious complaints either. Nor have there been any complaints about incivility, BLP violations, edit-warring, inappropriate baiting of other editors, or indeed anything else.
  3. Perhaps more important is that, throughout the two years during which I was an active admin, there were never any complaints about any administrative action being taken wrongly.
  4. When taking admin action - say when finding a user vandalising articles - I have usually preferred not to leave a templated message even when the user was new and not covered by 'Don't template the regulars'. Instead I write a short but personalised message with appropriate links only. This is an approach I find works much better and helps support the genuinely new reader who perhaps got misled by the perception of Wikipedia vandalism as more extensive than it in fact is. Several users who appeared set on continuing vandalism desisted without having to be blocked.
  5. If I can be excused a degree of immodesty, I think it was generally agreed that while on the Arbitration Committee I was diligent and hardworking. When the community was asked for feedback on individual members, some of the comments were encouraging. I am informed that "practically no-one has disagreed" that I was an "excellent and hard-working arbitrator" (and that's from a published reliable source).
  6. Looking behind that, let's be clear that candidates don't get elected to Arbcom in the first place unless the community is confident in them in the round. Andrew Dalby noted on page 141 of "The World and Wikipedia" that I had a "squeaky-clean record".
  7. The other thing which undoubtedly helped secure election to Arbcom was that I generally avoid the major internal debates; I'm not usually to be found writing long screeds on the Administrators' noticeboard about the latest issue (not even when it happens unfortunately to be me), nor do I rush in to take extreme administrative action. I didn't feel obliged to participate in The Great Wikipedia Dramaout because I wasn't adding to drama anyway.
  8. After leaving the Arbitration Committee I have continued to help support a better encyclopaedia not just by writing articles but also by participating calmly in other discussions - leaving comments in RfCs, for example. I was also a member of the Wikimedia wide BLP task force and helped develop ways to make sure biographies of living people are accurate.
  9. This is a recall RfA. I gave a pledge when running for adminship to be open for recall and I have abided by my pledge.
  10. In abandoning a previous account and starting a new one, this was precisely an attempt to get rid of "an editor often in trouble for edit warring and incivility" and to substitute in place thereof a productive and polite editor. (It's worth pointing out, to anyone who wishes to assert that the productivity and politeness is "just an act", that the incivility in 2006 had also long since become equally an act: unfortunately once someone has got a reputation for expressing themselves forcefully in debate, they are obliged to go on expressing themselves with increasing force or else others will mistake their strength of feeling. This is the source of much of the problems involving Giano.) Despite some provocation I think it's clear I have managed to keep to the productive and polite path for long enough to demonstrate that it is closer to the real person.
  11. It was also a positive attempt to forgive and forget any previous grudges and I think I have managed to keep to that too. Andrew Dalby certainly wrote that he saw "no sign" that any grudges had been held.
  12. When there was a great deal of drama and several deletion debates over the end of May and the beginning of June last year, I stayed out of the actual debates, offering only occasional comments on the talk page. Indeed while on the Arbitration Committee I could have had oversight power just by asking, and used it to suppress all manor of information which was subsequently used to my detriment, but I never sought to do so.
  13. I realise that many Wikipedians may believe that I deserve some sanction for the embarrassment caused to the project last May. I would ask them to accept that the articles in the worldwide press (including the local press around where I live) constitute a sanction far greater than any available on Wikipedia, and that the embarrassment concentrated mainly on me rather than on the encyclopaedia as a whole.
  14. But one result of that is that I am now self-identified to the Foundation. Incidentally, I am also CRB checked with enhanced disclosure; I know some external sites comment about child protection on Wikipedia.
  15. And that leads to a key consideration: How likely is it that an editor whose identity is known and has some degree of prominence, will, if given additional tools, then misuse them? Surely the answer is that it is unlikely in the extreme. If it will help editors to indicate their support, perhaps I should offer to supply the name, email address and phone number of the editors of the four main local newspapers where I live to a neutral administrator, with an instruction to disclose them in the event of malpractice.

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to resume the areas in which I was working prior to joining the Arbitration committee. They included processing candidates for speedy deletion, where I was discriminating and made sure to decline nominations which did not make the grade, while quickly deleting articles which harmed the encyclopaedia. I also checked and enforced on reports of edit warring. Without being a speciality, I did close the odd deletion debate, and occasionally reviewed block appeals if I happened to be the first to see them. I occasionally do recent changes patrol which can bring up almost any issue - inappropriate usernames, attack pages for speedy deletion (it's getting to be a chore to tag them and wait for others to delete).
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: The one fact about my resignation from the Arbitration Committee which keeps getting forgotten is that I would have gone in a few days anyway because I wanted to return to article writing. Since then the longest article I have written is Rate-capping rebellion, which started as an attempt to explain the disqualifications of 32 Lambeth councillors in the proper context. Searching out the best sources required several visits to the British Library and to Colindale for newspapers; like Topsy, the article "just growed" to approach 14,000 words as I realised that it was impossible to do the subject justice without including the other councils involved. (See User:Sam Blacketer/Ratecapping for the article developing in userspace.)
Some shorter articles are worth picking out. I was surprised not to find an article about I'm Backing Britain, which anyone who was around at the time must remember (if only for the Bruce Forsyth song which I have on my iTunes). Sir Frank Newsam had always struck me as an interesting figure, the more so since he worked largely behind the scenes. I found that his article came out nicely rounded, bearing in mind that "it isn't enough to tell us what a man did. You've got to tell us who he was" (a motto to live by when writing biographies, I find). Fashioning a decent article about an obscure figure is always deeply rewarding, although it is regrettably difficult to be complete about their lives: see Charles Beattie whose obscurity is a story in itself, and also Norman Coates where I actually know a great deal more than can be put into the article because of rules about sourcing. In both cases their articles have identified reliable sources which explain far more about their lives than is available in the standard reference works. Mainly working on political subjects sometimes feels restrictive but then along comes Hubert Duggan as a subject whose politics are interesting but also turns out to have literary connections. Because I go to Wikipedia to forget my own politics, I'm quite proud that the article about John Gouriet came out so well balanced. Feel free to browse a list of articles I have created.
In articles which I have not created from scratch, explaining the background to the 1892 vote of no confidence against the government of the Marquess of Salisbury was interesting, and filling in the background on the National Labour Organisation was rewarding. Work on providing biographies goes on there. Another place where I'm active is on the Reference Desk - mainly Humanities and Miscellaneous sections. I hope I have been of some help to questioners there.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Resisting the temptation to say "see above" (although readers should do so) perhaps I can concentrate on conflicts since 23 May 2009. There was a dispute with Lomcevak over Natascha Engel (a fairly obscure backbench MP, but Lomcevak is evidently one of her constituents) which centred on application of Biographies of living people and undue weight to the article. I hope I kept to the issue at hand and fairly applied Wikipedia policies while retaining as much useful and usable information as possible and being open to debate. Then there was an issue with Trust Is All You Need over the breadth of WikiProject Socialism which I felt was being inappropriately extended into unconnected articles based on linguistic coincidences. Again the key is to keep to the issue at hand and bring in outside comment which I think was effective in that case. Also I did get somewhat vexed by Ottava Rima over his persistent challenging in a rename debate on Talk:Alfred, Lord Tennyson. The only remedy there was to disengage.
Question from WJBscribe
4: Do you still see a role on Wikipedia for someone to act as "duty solicitor" for those accused of 3RR violations? What is your current view of the merits of the three revert rule?
A: I would invite you to look at my actions in the intervening period, in excess of three years, for an answer to the first part. For the second part I welcome the significant change to the wider new name Administrator's Noticeboard/Edit warring. However I think I must also point out the fact that you had already !voted, indicating that your opinions are "strong", normally meaning not liable to change based on further information, before asking a question to seek further information. Just strikes me as unusual. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A simple "yes" or "no" might be a better idea than "please feel free to trawl through 3 years of edits". Questions are to be ignored or answered, not used to send users off on snipe hunts. Ironholds (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My answer was intended to convey (perhaps with excessive subtlety) that there were no such edits to be found. The problem with trying to answer in an RfA like this is that if trust is at issue, then the only way to give a convincing answer is to invite others to verify it for themselves. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question from Triplestop
5: From your own point of view, what misdeeds have you committed that resulted in you losing the bit? Why were the things you did wrong? How would you change if given back the mop? How can we be sure that you would change as you promise?
A: Now that is an interesting question. Taken literally, it was my own decision voluntarily to desysop but obviously that's not the whole story. I chose to abide by a promise to be subject to recall and deemed it to be a reasonable request that I should do so because in the circumstances the community might legitimately feel that it would want to consider the subject again. I regret that I did not alert pick a senior editor and alert them immediately on starting afresh, but I want to make it quite clear that I do not regret for one moment actually starting afresh under a new name. (Truth be told I was sick of having to behave as the old account behaved.) And retrospectively running for Arbcom was not wise - I'd hoped to lose that election.
How would I change if given back the mop? There are some areas where I would decline to take administrative action, not because I feel myself to be biased, but because others do and it would just cause immense "drama" whatever I did. But I am not sure that anyone has actually identified a mistaken block, abusive deletion or mistaken page protection since April 2007. Your guarantee of proper behaviour is in point 15 above (and Lara makes a good point in her neutral vote below, too). Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Questions from Lara
6a: Can you explain the situation with the unblock?
A: It was four years ago and as Sam Goldwyn said, we've all passed a lot of water since then. Basically I would not have done it were it not 1 AM with me in the middle of a major edit (which was an hour or so in the crafting) which I really did not want to lose. Note this comment by blocking admin accepting that the block was unnecessary. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
6b: "In abandoning a previous account and starting a new one" is what you wrote in your statement. Opposition states that there was approximately a year of overlap. Can you explain this discrepancy?
A: At the time there was no procedure for 'clean start under a new name' so it's perhaps not surprising that when it was created later, what I did was not precisely within its terms. The point was to start again with no connection being made and I took the view that if one account disappeared and a second account started up at exactly the same time, the connection would be blindingly obvious. So instead it slowly wound down. There was another thing which occurred to me: in order to stop in their tracks anyone who thought to compare them, the more irremediable the old account seemed the better. It was aimed at provoking anyone who happened to think "I wonder if these are the same editor?" to then immediately think "No, the first one is always so bad tempered, and the second one is always so squeaky clean". Don't know if anyone did wonder about any connection before May 2009. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Questions from User:Bali ultimate
'7a: Do you have any conflicts of interest with articles you've been involved in editing here? If so, how have you handled such COIs in the past, and how do you intend to handle them in the future?
A:
7b: Could you explain how the AGF culture of wikipedia can be exploited by people happy to manipulate and lie? If so, what role do administrators have in mitigating this ongoing problem?
A:
7c: Please list all of the accounts you have ever edited wikipedia with.
A:
One simple question from Skomorokh
7: Why should we trust you?
A:
Questions from John Vandenberg
8: Did Jimmy Wales ever ask you to "identity" yourself to him?
A:
9: When did you first learn that people had joined the dots between your old and new identity?
A:
Question from Leaky Caldron
10: I have already strongly opposed you, but this question is a reasonable one for the benefit of those who are yet to make up their mind. You wish to resume being an Admin., on the face of it because you stepped down voluntarily with a good record as an experienced Admin. However, as some of your supporters have commented, you would return under constant scrutiny (#14 & #15) and as you concede, there are areas in which you would not get involved (Q5). Does the community need a constantly under scrutiny, lame-duck admin. with a higher than usual risk of drama?
A:
Question from Jayen466
11: You say above (6b) that you intentionally assumed an irascible persona with your Fys account towards the end, to throw people off the scent. Do you think that interacting with the Fys account in that period might have been stressful or unpleasant for other editors? Did this thought ever bother you? Does it bother you now?
A:

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Sam Blacketer before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Account Active period Edit counter
Sam Blacketer (talk · contribs) 2006-12-12 ~
Dbiv (talk · contribs) 2004-03-27 to 2007-02-03 (renamed to Fys on 2006-10-07, but..)
Fys (talk · contribs) 2006-10-07 to 2007-11-10
Support[edit]
I am willing to give you another go. ceranthor 14:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Like Nancy, I do believe people who were trustworthy before deserve another chance to hold trust and I don't think that SB will abuse our trust again. If he does, formal proceedings much more limiting than a desysop should take place. ceranthor 18:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Abstaining. I was familiar with the situation but apparently missed parts of it that are not unforgivable but severely damage trust of this user. I agree that 8 months is not enough, and would like to keep an open mind nevertheless. ceranthor 22:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. No hesitation. Nancy talk 14:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I should add that I followed the events in the Spring and my support was made in full cognisance of the facts. I am a firm believer in rehabilitation and giving people a second chance and I cannot see anything which would make me think that giving the bit back would result in any bad blocks, protections or deletions. I may or may not trust "Sam Blacketer" in certain real life situations but this is about a few extra buttons on a website and I know that he won't abuse them. Nancy talk 18:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. I don't know anything about the drama of May, so I'll base my support on non-admin contributions since then, whilst bearing in mind all contributions. I can't see a good reason to oppose, and lots of good ones to support. GedUK  15:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Per Ged UK.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 15:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. I wasn't around for the events that led to the necessity of recall/this confirmation, so, like Ged and Giants, I'll base my opinion on what I'm seeing since then, which, for me, is sufficient for my support. Cocytus [»talk«] 15:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support I know a little bit about the drama in May as someone put a related attack page up for rescue by the ARS. Id much rather trust someone with good intentions even if they havent always played with a straight bat than a 100% upstanding zealot. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. People make mistakes. Sometimes, they even make big ones. Forgiving them isn't a strong suit of Wikipedia, for some reason. I think this place would be a better one if it were more forgiving, so I'm supporting on that principle alone. Give him another chance, see what happens. --Conti|✉ 17:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support I'm confident Sam will be a fine administrator going forward. Obviously he needs to avoid using his tools in relation to political subjects. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support I am willing to give this editor another chance, from the above they have learned from their mistakes and I think will make a good admin going forward. RP459 (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support, no particular concerns in recent months and quite a lot of good contributions. In my view enough time has passed to overlook past transgressions. ~ mazca talk 18:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Strongest possible support – The comments in the oppose section are not only entirely unpersuasive, but also hypocritical at best. Sam should not have resigned in the first place, neither from ArbCom nor from adminship — there was never a reason at all for doing so. Sam has my unconditional confidence. This RfA should be closed as successful, completely regardless of the %-result: Wikipedia will nothing but profit from Sam having the tools, and that's — or at least should be — the only decisive determinant. --Aitias (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support Sam left his original account it was messy with blocks, he didn't tell anyone and then went off and became an admin and an arbcom, he was well respected as an arbitrator and as an admin, all he did was leave behind a dirty account and went on to be a very good editor which he is now and could again be a very good admin, there is nothing left to worry about this editor, I strongly support a bit of forgiveness. Off2riorob (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. AGF Support. Sam has made serious mistakes in the past, and he understands that. Given the amount he suffered as a result of his misdeeds, I can't believe he would ever do something similar again - he knows now just how bad the consequences can be. So when he says he's learned his lesson, I believe him. In addition, he was a valuable and productive admin and arbitrator, and there's no reason to think he wouldn't be again. For those reasons, I'm happy to give him my support. One of the principles of Wikipedia ought to be that if someone truly recognises and apologises for their mistakes, we should be prepared to accept that and give them the chance to make amends. Robofish (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Finally, I can't help but think that if Sam Blacketer had abandoned his account and started afresh with a new one in June, instead of continuing with this one, he would be passing RFA right now. His recent contributions have been good if not excellent. That's what we should be judging him on. It's somewhat ironic, given that the account-switching is what many people are opposing over, that our system seems to directly encourage such behaviour by judging people on their old sins rather than their recent contributions. Robofish (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Support as per [2]. Garibaldi Baconfat 22:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Moral support. While I'm loathe to vote near Aitias' troll support, I believe Sam did well as an administrator. I appreciate the way he's handling himself in this RFA, which is not going well for him at all. I also appreciate his restraint and well-considered responses to others. I don't presume all editors keep track of who've they've been blocked by in years past, nor do I believe everyone remembers every editor they've been in some sort of conflict or disagreement with. I've come to believe that users have a right to a fresh start. Regardless, he's applying for adminship, not ArbCom, and his history of use of administrative tools is good. I do find it concerning that full disclosure was not made with the start of this RFA. The numbered list gives some basic information, but there are no links or previous account names to follow. For those who were previously unaware of the situations being mentioned, it doesn't give a sufficient detailing of the significance of what happened. Further, I'm not seeing a clear promise not to repeat mistakes, but I do see where it's noted it would be risky for someone identified to act inappropriately, and I think I can take it as given that he doesn't intend to be deceitful again. I further appreciate his candid answers to my questions. The one serious admin actions that seems to have come into question was four years ago. I can't bring myself to care about something that happened so long ago. And while I found the overlap between the two accounts a bit troubling, without evidence that there was abusive sockpuppetry, rather than a desire to keep suspicion away as Sam has expressed, then I'm no longer concerned with it. When it comes down to it, do I trust him with the admin tools? That's the important question to ask in RFAs. While I do understand the concerns of many of those in the oppose section, for me, all considered (his past admin history, the drama he's dealt with in the fallout of his actions, and the fact that he'd have people watching him like hawks), I do trust him with this particular set of tools. Lara 23:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Support I strongly believe in man's infinite capacity for recreating himself. In absence of any evidence to the contrary, I see no reason not to support you. Should you succeed (which I don't think will happen this time, but perhaps in the future), I will warn you that you will face an extra degree of scrutiny, so just remember to keep your nose twice as clean as everyone else. As for this particular RfA, do keep in mind that broken trust takes quite a while to heal. Some people may never forgive you, but if you really deserve it, most will come around. Ultimately, forgiveness is given, not earned, and there's not too much you can do about those not inclined to give it. Good Luck. Angrysockhop (and a happy new year) 23:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Support--BozMo talk 00:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Support - my view here (as someone who was a colleague of Sam for a few months on the arbitration committee before he resigned) is that while Sam's returning under a new account and failing to disclose that is incompatible with the levels of trust required of an arbitrator, adminship should not be as big a deal as long as the issues related to full disclosure have been worked through (as I think they have). I will also say that the work he did as an arbitrator was at the least above-average, if not more, and the impression gained from working with him for several months (and his previous use of the tools) is that he is not someone who would abuse the admin tools. I think Sam could make good use of the tools, and making this RFA a community verdict on his past conduct is not the right way to proceed here (there are other venues to raise those issues). Carcharoth (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. I think he's owned his mistake, there's no evidence of other misconduct under the username Sam Blacketer, and he has my trust as an administrator. I find it easy, then, to support. (Further note for whatever its worth, I wouldn't vote for him for ArbCom. But the tools given via RfA are pretty limited, in my view, and I don't believe he would misuse them). Nathan T 01:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Support Sam did fine as an admin and will do so again, though it seems unlikely he will be given the chance. AniMate 06:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Moral support There is little prospect of this RfA succeeding but, for the record, Sam did a fine job as an admin and as an arbitrator; and he acted promptly and honorably when his past was exposed. I do not believe for a moment that, as some opposers below assert, he set out to mislead the community in this RfA: as he is fully aware, the back story is incredibly well known (it was even reported in the British press) and it would inevitably be raised. Sam does have a valuable contribution to make and I do not believe that his misjudgments of the past should be held against him in perpetuity.  Roger Davies talk 07:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 11:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. A lost cause at this time, but for what it's worth: What scares me is the apparent level of sophistication and cunningness of the past deception and opportunism, when I read e.g. Q6b. What reassures me is that you've apparently come completely clean with it, that the worst parts of it are now two years in the past, and that I believe that you are aiming for openness and transparency now (but I agree with O51 Dweller about how this RfA could have used a better introduction with a very brief description of the core issue, and lessons learned).
    Your wikilife and adminship as Sam Blacketer was a benefit. You are tried with the tools, you'd be under additional scrutiny, I find abuse of them unlikely. You've made it hard to trust you personally, but I would trust you with the tools. Amalthea 14:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I respect your opinion and I appreciate the candidate answering Q6b, which really clarified things quite a bit. I do want to point out a few things, however. The first concerns the "Your wikilife and adminship as Sam Blacketer was a benefit" bit (Sam also stresses in his opening statement that the Sam Blacketer account has a "squeaky clean record"). Whatever we may think about the meaning and shortcomings of WP:CLEANSTART (and the situation when WP:CLEANSTART was not yet available), I am pretty sure that it does not include building up a clean editing record on a new account while simultaneously continuing disruptive editing from the old account. Yet that was exactly the situation with the 11 months overlap between the Sam Blacketer and Fys accounts. Sam's answer to Q6b shows that this was in fact a part of deliberate strategy on his part. Sam Blacketer account started editing on Dec 13, 2006 and Fys received a block on Feb 14, 2007 for "Gross incivility, personal attacks - continuing despite repeated warnings". Fys' archived talk page for 2007 User:Fys/talk archive9 shows a record of continoued disruption by Fys, at least until the end of August 2007. There are many warnings there by various users, including admins, about trolling and incivility, as well as examples of such incivility in the talk page itself, e.g. the Ahrn Palley section from May 21, 2007. Sam Blacketer RFA was closed as successful on April 28, 2007. Yet even after that disruption and incivility by Fys continued. Apart from the May 21 Ahrn Palley episode, the talk page archive also contains an Aug 18, 2007 exchange (more than 3.5 months into Sam Blaketer's adminship) User:Fys/talk archive9#Your trolling, including several warnings from other admins, which shows that Fys was moments away from being blocked at that point. Concealing one's past transgressions to make a clean start is one thing, but building up a "squeaky clean" editing history on a new account while continuing to disrupt from the old one is quite something else. The same talk page archive shows that Fys and JzG had some sort of a long-standing history of conflict (the Aug 18, 2007 episode is apparently related to it). This makes it all the worse that later on, as an arb, Sam voted on the JzG related items in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV case. Also, I don't have the feeling that Sam has, as you put it, "come completely clean with it". Many of us, myself included, knew nothing at all about the Sam Blacketer resignation controversy, and the opening statement had rather oblique references to it, without providing all the relevant information and explanations up front. The relevant links regarding Fys/Dbiv account history were added to the RFA by others (not by Sam) later on, and his own explanations of his actions, such as the answer to Q6b, also were not given up front, but had to be extracted slowly, bit by bit. This attitude does not strike me as that of someone coming "completely clean with it" and I am not at all sure that there are no other significant parts of the story that are still being omitted. Finally, redemption has to start with contrition. But thus far I have not seen Sam say that he is sorry for the deception and manipulation on his path to adminship and arbcom election, or for the fact that as an arbcom member he participated in judging users with whom he previously had significant conflicts. Nsk92 (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. A difficult case, but per Amalthea, whose argument I found persuasive. Timotheus Canens (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Support. 'Sam' is a good editor and was a good admin and arb. People make mistakes and it is wrong to hold their past against them indefinitely. It's clear that this is too soon, however, as a bunch of the opposition from people I respect indicates. Best wishes, Jack Merridew 18:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Support I am aware of the history here. However, I do believe in rehabilitation after a period of time and that Sam can be trusted with the tools going into the future. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Support. Definitely brings a lot of experience to the table, something Wikipedia always could use more of. I'm unaware of the prior history, but seems sincere enough in the nom statement for me to trust them. -- Ϫ 05:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose. With some reluctance but strongly nevertheless. I am sorry, but I simply don't trust you. You were quite happy to mislead the community for some considerable time when it suited your purposes previously and I believe you would do so again. You didn't disclose your previous identity when running first for RfA under this username. You didn't disclose it when you ran for ArbCom. You then felt no need to own up to your past history to Jimbo or your colleagues once appointed. You then didn't recuse from hearing cases involving users where conflicts of interest arose from the time you edited under your previous names. I am sorry, but I am unconfortable with someone having admin rights who was willing to deceive the community in that way to suit his own ends.
    I also don't think you're being particular open in making this request - I see no links to your RfA as Dbiv, or contributions as Fys (or indeed the block log of both those accounts).1 I would take someone coming to this request not knowing the history a bit of digging to work out what past behaviour it was you were trying to avoid. Your answer to question 3 seems conveniently confined to your editing as Sam Blacketer. Are there conflicts you regret under your past identities?
    Finally, although you acknowledge you may have caused the project "embarassment", I see no real acknowledgement from you that running for adminship and then ArbCom without informing the community about your past accounts was an abuse of trust and that you regret it (on the contrary you rely on your appointment to ArbCom to advance this very request at point 6). WJBscribe (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    1I note that further links were added to this RfA by another editor while I was writing this message: [3]. I strongly believe that they, and others, should have been put there from the start by the candidate. WJBscribe (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose, essentially per WJBScribe. Any current "honest" activity must be taken in context, that context being that Sam Blacketer, under various names, knowingly and repeatedly lied to the community and violated the trust it held him in. This RfA is an extension of that; it seems very well formatted to hide almost any direct reference to why you were desysopped. Arguing that somebody in the public sphere is unlikely to play around is an awful argument; you've played around in the past. Every moment as an arbitrator and administrator you didn't tell the community was violating its trust in you; every moment post-identification. If identified people are unlikely to violate trust, why did you do so in the past? I see no evidence that we can trust you with the tools, and more importantly I see no recognition that you know what you did was wrong. Almost every point in your nomination statement regarding your "unmasking" is an excuse or justification. Ironholds (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. No. Lost my trust, forever. Pedro :  Chat  16:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Per WJBscribe mostly. There have been other cases of former admins/banned users returning under new names (viz. Law/The Undertow), but I think the level of the deceit here is too great. Adminship is one thing (and you were a fine admin as far as I can tell) but taken all the way to arbcom is too much for me. You got greedy. Also, I still see attempts to hide the truth on this RFA, such as the lack of links (originally) to former accounts. You don't seem at all remorseful/regretful either. Majorly talk 16:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose. Like some of the supporters, much of what happened was before my time. But I just looked at some history linked above, and I see Fys unblocking Dbiv. A single person unblocking oneself? Wikipedia needs to move on, and this user does not need to be an admin. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose. I did not know anything about the controversy leading to the May resignation, but now, after reading through the relevant pages, I don't believe that trusting the candidate with admin tools is warranted. The Dbiv/Fys account has an extensive block log and history of disruption. Fys was desysopped by arbcom for serious abuse of admin tools. The Fys account and the Sam Blacketer account have an overlap of almost a year: Sam Blacketer started editing on December 13, 2006 while Fys continued editing until Nov 10, 2007. So this was not the case of an editor vanishing and then making a clean start. Yet Sam did not disclose his Fys history during his original April 2007 RfA (at the time when Fys was still editing), or during the ArbCom elections later (in fact, the nominating process for Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007 started on Nov 1, 2007, while Fys was still editing). I don't see any apologies for this abuse of trust in Sam's nominating statement above. As an arb, Sam accepted and voted in the W.M. Connolley RFAR, even though Fys filed an RFC against WMC in 2006. Although Fys had been blocked by Tango in 2006, Sam made extensive comments in Tango's RFAR in 2008. Given these kinds of serious breaches of trust in the past, I don't think that seven months of good behaviour since the May resignation is nearly long enough for the candidate to ask for the tools back. Even for a brand new user starting from scratch with a clean slate I would want to see at least 9-10 months of editing before asking for the sysop button; for somebody with as extensive history of problems and abuse of trust as we have in this case, that period should certainly be much longer. Nsk92 (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Actually at the point the Tango case was filed his user name rang no bells with me. I just commented based on the case as brought (and for what it's worth my opinion was to refuse to take the case. It was only after that Giano noted his previous actions, which reminded me and led to a recusal on the case. Just pointing that fact out. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry, but under the circumstances I find the "rang no bells with me" explanation difficult to believe. Plus a few months later you commented and voted on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV, including the items related to JzG and Viridae, even though Fys had been blocked by both of them. Nsk92 (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Another point, regarding item 6 in your opening statement. While the Sam Blacketer account had been editing for over two months, building up, as you put it, a "squeaky clean record", Fys gets blocked by Viridae on Feb 14, 2007, for "Gross incivility, personal attacks - continuing despite repeated warnings". That is quite an interesting way of being "squeaky clean"... Nsk92 (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Oppose I am a great believer that people can change; I believe that the worst vandal can return as a honest editor and can be granted adminship; People can learn from their mistakes and, unlike others, I believe that trust can be re-earned. That said, I also know that this requires time and work and the more trust you lose, the more you need to work to re-earn it. Considering the amount and severity of the mistakes this candidate made in the past, I don't think 8 months without the mop are enough time to re-earn the community's trust. Regards SoWhy 16:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Strong oppose With a nod to the candidate’s extensive content contributions, I do not think he has earned the right to re-gain the tools of adminship. This candidate has deeply abused the community’s trust, and I certainly don’t think he has it now. First of all, this account was not a legitimate “clean start” account due to a year-long editing overlap between the Fys and Blacketer accounts, and due to the failure to disclose this history during the Blacketer RfA, during the relevant ArbCom election, and even upon election to ArbCom. The Fys account had been desysopped for abuse of admin powers, which is absolutely something that the candidate should have disclosed. The worst offense was failing to recuse from voting on ArbCom sanctions against editors by whom the Fys account had been blocked or with whom “Fys” had otherwise interacted negatively. His actions regarding JzG and Viridae at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV and regarding William M. Connolley at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley, in particular, seem improper. Bottom line: Sam Blacketer abused the community’s trust and has not earned it back. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Out of retirement oppose. As those who know my history are aware, I'm obviously in favor of allowing people to quietly return under new accounts whatever their history. However, I don't trust you in the least; you weren't someone who made a mistake and tried to cover it up, you were someone who systematically lied and manipulated the good faith of other users over a period of years. One of my very few "never" users. – iridescent 17:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Oppose, basically per WJB's reasoning. UnitAnode 17:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Oppose after such a grand deception I don't think sweeping it all under the rug is warranted by granting special privileges and responsibilities. You are a good editor, leave it there...Modernist (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. No acknowledgement, no repentance, no change. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Behavioral issues are not my strong suit, but we're talking about lack of openness at the ArbCom level, which ought to be a concern for all good wiki-citizens. The most generous position I could possibly adopt here would be SoWhy's. - Dank (push to talk) 18:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Oppose per above. Not acceptable. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. oppose per unrepentant serial liars can't be trusted.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. WP:NOTEVER Opppose We are lucky here. Usually we have to use all the evidence to evaluate just how good the candidate's judgement is. But we know here. The candidate abused their position in order to further their own political party and ideology. That is not acceptable on Wikipedia and, rather than an RFA, the candidate should be facing a proposal for a community ban, in my opinion. GTD 18:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Strong Oppose. This “confirmation of administrator status” submission and the economical with the truth manner of its presentation (long on words, cleverly disregarding notable key events to suit the motives of the applicant) should be deprecated. With thanks to Caspian blue for revealing the true, full facts, I echo the statement by WJBScribe (the only word of which I would disagree with is “reluctance”) and others in strongly opposing this candidate. Leaky Caldron 18:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. I don't think this would be a good idea, to say the least. The COI issues were never resolved to my personal satisfaction. Plus per the many objections raised by other opposers such as WJBScribe, Iridescent, et al. Sorry. ++Lar: t/c 18:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. There's no need to take a chance here.  Sandstein  18:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Oppose, per WJBScribe, and Ironholds. –blurpeace (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Oppose per WJBScribe, and Ironholds also. Ikip 19:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Oppose Sorry, but this is a position of trust. I believe in second chances, but I think a longer period of time as a quality editor is warranted. I'm thinking 24 months, not three. I haven't reviewed your editing contributions, but I've read enough positive that I hope you will continue to be a productive editor. --SPhilbrickT 19:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Oppose WJBscribe, Ironholds and A Stop at Willoughby have laid out a compelling case against entrusting this editor with admin powers. The failure to disclose past desysopping is of concern. Also, the candidate's refusal to properly answer q4 is unsatisfactory: regardless of WJBscribe's !vote the question was valid. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Oppose. Long history of alternate bad hand accounts (per Nsk92) that had a real-world impact on the credibility of this site (per Criticism of Wikipedia). Pcap ping 20:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Oppose I was going to support when I first saw this RfA, figuring whatever led to you being desysopped must not have been a big deal. Now that I see the full story I have to oppose. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 20:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Oppose, per previous abuses of the community's trust. Lankiveil (speak to me) 20:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  27. Oppose Although you lost the community trust for your inappropriate conducts for a quite a while, your voluntary resignation from adminship in the end was a right thing to do. I really appreciate that at least since many corrupt admins do not recall themselves unlike their in turn "bogus pledge" over recalling to the community at their RFA. Many of them retain the tool or only a few was desysoped by ArbCom. However, you should've posted "your official apology statement" at least here or right before you run for adminship and post your all past accounts and the background of your resignation for honesty sake. Therefore, I don't think you're ready for regaining the tool and trust.--Caspian blue 20:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Per WJBscribe, with regret. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Oppose - Sadly, after what you did last year, there's not much trust I can possibly even try to muster up for you. The way you went behind the community's and ArbCom's back to become an Arb, then (as WJBscribe said) even reviewed cases which you had an apparent conflict of interest in, simply leaves a nasty taste in my mouth. Second chances are one thing, your editing history is another. This RFA shows even more game playing on your part, as it seems you tried to mask from the community the real reason you got desysopped in the first place. Just from looking over this RFA, I cannot honestly say that I think you wouldn't do it again, if given the chance. Therefore I can do nothing other than oppose you, and I can surely say I will never support you. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Strong Oppose per Soap, and the fact what he did broke the trust of everyone in this community. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 21:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    He still has my total trust. Off2riorob (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Oppose - And I thought my RfA was amusing! TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. (edit conflict) I agree with what WJBscribe (oppose #1) and Nsk92 (oppose #6) have already said. I do agree with SoWhy that trust can be re-gained - however, what Sam did was indeed far beyond the pale. I may support giving Sam another go with the mop a while down the road (perhaps a year from now), but not yet. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 21:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Oppose Sorry but I don't trust you. ThemFromSpace 21:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Regrettably. Per above. You have my respect as an previous arbitrator but the offenses noted above are too pressing to ignore. Sorry Sam. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Oppose I don't trust you, sorry. --MW talk contribs 22:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Oppose - per the !votes above. December21st2012Freak Talk to me at ≈ 22:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Please see WP:AAAD. REmember, be specific :)--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. I like Sam, but he has quite certainly lost my trust. AGK 22:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Oppose per Iridescent, being that I'm one of her other "never" folks. :) I went through the RFA process four times, and it wasn't worth it. I believed in second chances, but others did not. I argued that I could have started over and gained adminship that way, but that did not count in my favor. In retrospect, I see it from the majority perspective. To grant adminship to Sam Blacketer is to condone what he did. If we allow it, then any disgraced-but-not-banned user will feel empowered to do likewise, and anarchy will prevail. Sure, we've approved admin candidates who turned out to be banned users - and we sent them back to oblivion. Despite my full confidence that Sam Blacketer can fulfill the admin responsibilities faithfully, as he has done, I cannot support giving him the permission. Chutznik (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Oppose No. The past editing behaviour is alarming. The editor needs to spend more time earning the communities trust back before an succesful rfa. Ottawa4ever (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Oppose No need to be repetitive. Per above and specifically WJBscribe.  fetchcomms☛ 23:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. No, never. Your crime was far greater than many others who have failed RFAs for past transgressions. I don't think you should get off either. And for what it's worth, i don't trust politicians. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Strong Oppose Sorry, but I do not trust you, for what should be obvious reasons... The Thing Happy New Year! 00:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Oppose Trust, once lost, is difficult to regain. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. Oppose per Soap.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. Oppose per above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. Oppose. While sockpuppeting into an arbcom seat is an impressive display of social skills, it is also incompatible with any future position of trust. Skinwalker (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Strong oppose. I think others have already explained it; you socked into a position of trust and I cannot bring myself to trust you again at this time. Kcowolf (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. Oppose I see a lot of reasons for concern. I don't think you should have the tools. Is is so bad being a normal editor? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Oppose. Not that this pile-on needs more, but I feel a need to register my view after having sought clarification on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Sam Blacketer 2#Question about another account. — Athaenara ✉ 05:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. Strong oppose. This user's conduct has been outrageous. Everyking (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Outrageously awesome, maybe.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  51. Regretfully. Wounds are still raw. Not that I'd necessarily support an RfA in a year's time, but I'd give it stronger consideration. And a tip to all RfA candidates coming back here after controversy - why not spell out the controversy in simple terms (your own simple terms is fine) as well as your justifications for why we should overlook the problems. If you avoid too much POV you stand a better chance of seeming penitent. It's also dang helpful. --Dweller (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. Not given the history of abuse. Steve Smith (talk) 08:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. Nay You had two runs at it and both ended with levels of disgrace. I am normally a supporter but here i think the inverse applies, why?. I don't think any RfA candidate has had me review their participation on and sanctions imposed by the Arbitration Committee. Declaring previous accounts in a resignation from ArbComm, the de-sysop page stating you intended to try for a 3rd time and unblocking yourself on your old account are too much for me. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 09:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. I don't think so. RFA demands a certain level of deviousness but really, the history here is one of taking that way too far. Moreschi (talk) 10:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  55. Oppose per many of the comments above.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  56. Oppose. I agree with most of what was already said above in the comment by Coffee (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  57. Oppose per SoWhy. I'm not keen on opposing RfAs; I tend to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately I don't feel able to do so here just yet. The incident is still a bit too recent in the collective minds of many here and is used by our detractors to this day to point out the flaws in Wikipedia's structure and system of governance. The fact that you stand for such a flaw could be a serious detriment to both the credentials of the project at large and harm your ability to act in a sysop capacity. I could give you a second chance a year or few down the line when the details of the incident stop being so vivid in my memory, and I look forward to a new RfA then. —what a crazy random happenstance 14:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  58. Strong Oppose - Distinct lack of trust given why he left ARBCOM. 18:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinny87 (talk • contribs)
  59. Oppose - no, most definitely not. For reasons described repeatedly above. Achromatic (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  60. Oppose Too much baggage, sorry. Warrah (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  61. Oppose Because you said "Despite some stresses and strains, some of which have tried my patience" I don't think that is going to help you grant administration. Try not to go too deep into the past mate. Minimac94 (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  62. Oppose WJBScribe makes too compelling of a case. But like SoWhy, I do believe in redemption, unfortunately; 8 months in this case is not long enough. After 2 years, I may consider it, but now? No. You abused the communities trust and faith in you. If you had reclused yourself from cases where COI potentials existed, I MIGHT have a different view, but to act on cases in secret where you may or may not have held a grudge/stance, sorry, you have to re-earn your trust.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Furthermore, there are not too many people whose actions garner media attention outside of Wikipedia Watchdog groups ala Wikipedia Review; but Sam did: The Independent, The Register, Daily Mail, and more. Sam's intentional and ongoing actions led to one of this projects blackest eyes. We are not talking about an isolated incident, we are talking about a deliberate attempt to conceal your identity in order to gain an upper hand here and in real life. Your actions were beyond dispicable. Again, I am willing to forgive, but we are talking years not months.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Just for completeness' sake, those newspaper reports about Sam were bizarrely distorted. About the only thing that was correct in them was that Sam had used another account name at some time. His edits to the Cameron article during his tenure as an arbitrator were all vandalism reverts, including the insertion of a picture "not carrying saintly overtones": this was the attack picture Sam took out with that edit. It was a perfectly decent edit, and the papers' making something out of it which it wasn't just shows how much papers are worth as sources when they prefer a glib story to the truth. --JN466 20:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fair enough, I don't know the details, I only know that this was an embarrassment to WP and to promote him again to a position that the outside world might consider one of authority, would be a mistake. Plus, I don't see the growth/apology necessary. When I first read the RfA, I had forgotten the case. This RfA completely glossed over his past, which is more in tune with the problems we've had in the past---not the person we hope to see in the future. I don't see the contrition/remorse or desire to rectify/make up for past mistakes. One does not redeem oneself by hiding from one's past, but rather by accepting and then working to redeem oneself in light of their transgressions.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Unfortunately (for the prospects of this RfA), I can't argue with you there. --JN466 22:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  63. Oppose Excellent content contributer, but a hidden good hand / bad hand sockpuppeteer who decided to retire the bad hand, hid it, and advanced to arb before being thrown down... At this time, despite your good record as an admin and arb under your present name, you should be content with being a productive editor. --StaniStani  21:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  64. Oppose: per the reasons above. South Bay (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  65. Strong Oppose Hmm, I remember you and this whole episode. I don’t normally comment on RFA’s but I’ll make an exception in this case. I personally don’t think your actions damaged Wikipedia as much as the press and other editors believed (regardless of the accuracy of the reports), they did more damage to yourself and your organisation. However I do think it would damage Wikipedia if we then turned around and promoted you again. Wikipedia would be a laughing stock. I suppose of course this RFA should be based on your personal suitability for the role (not the reaction of the real world press), but I’m afraid there I must give an even stronger oppose. Your past behaviour and attitude were worthy of a ban, and as your attitude doesn’t seem to have changed (based on your lack of clarity above) I don’t have much hope that your behaviour will either. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  66. Strong oppose per WJBscribe and others, but not the press articles. Just too much drama and too much future potential. How about a couple of clean years, under one account, first, then maybe A. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 22:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  67. Oppose. Sam is hoping that if he agrees to tons of restrictions, he'll get the tools again. How about we promote an admin who isn't going to need all the effort that's going to come with hammering out the restrictions and making sure they're followed/enforced? Şłџğģő 22:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  68. Oppose leopards, spots etc. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  69. Oppose - I believe in letting someone redeem themselves if they make a real effort to do so, even if their previous infractions were extremely bad. But as has been pointed out by others, even in this RfA the candidate did not openly declare the problems they've had in the past, and some of the answers to questions are evasive. Without showing complete transparency, an observable awareness of the seriousness of their past transgressions, and a willingness to totally own up to it, I can't even think about supporting adminship. -- Atama頭 23:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  70. Oppose. This user has betrayed the trust of the community and has a very poor history, which he refuses to openly acknowledge and has avoided throughout this RfA. Laurinavicius (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  71. Oppose Having carefully read (several times) the candidate's statements and those of the !votes here (support, oppose and neutral), I do not feel that I can support this candidate. I was not aware of the events detailed here before this RfA, but from what I see here, I do not feel that I can trust this candidate. Where possible, I try to avoid pile-on voting, but in this case, I feel that either !voting neutral, or not !voting at all are not possible. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  72. Oppose Per WJBscribe. No trust, and your answers seem to take great lengths to downplay your actions. I would always be wondering what ations we did not know about, or what was being hidden. Trust is gone for a long, long time. King Pickle (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  73. Oppose Mainly per WJBscribe,but also seems too soon after one of the most prominent Wikipedia reputation hits. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  74. No. As in not ever. You're not to be trusted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 03:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  75. Oppose Per WJBscribe, essentially. I simply cannot bring myself to trust you with the tools at this time. Airplaneman talk 04:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  76. In full agreement with a few of the above opposers, specifically WJB. iMatthew talk at 11:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  77. Oppose for the reasons outlined above. I would not trust this person to dispassionately judge issues where he has a POV, or to stand back form such areas. Rather the opposite: I see a history including at least two name changes used to evade scrutiny without acknowledgement of issues found with prior accounts. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral[edit]
I'm not opposing because piling on is unnecessary. However, because there was an abuse of administrative privileges with the former admin account, unblocking ones own sock, I can't support. Had there been full disclosure in the RFA and some sort of promise not to repeat past mistakes, I'd be willing to support, as it would be highly likely that there would be a lot of eyes scrutinizing you, Sam. Unfortunately, there was apparently no disclosure made in the beginning of this RFA for people who didn't already know what had happened. Wikipedia's model is extremely open to abuse, and no one is willing to take the necessary steps to fix it, choosing instead to just endlessly bitch about it. That considered along with the fact that it's adminship, not ArbCom, that you're applying for (and I don't recall admin actions being called into question under your current name) I'd really like to see you get another shot; but with no real acknowledgement of past mistakes, I just can't do it. Lara 19:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm just commenting on matters of fact. The unblock was not to "ones own sock" but to the account itself. When the account was renamed, the administrative action was transferred to the new name but the target of it wasn't. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, so you unblocked the admin account with itself? It was later remamed, thereby making the logs look a bit funny as the name doesn't change within them? Two questions. 1/ Can you explain the situation with the unblock 2/ Are there any incidents (serious ones, not the silly crap admins get called into question for) where your use of administrative privileges was called into question? [Strike that one, I don't even care now that I think about it. The Blacketer account did well with the tools. That's what matters to me.] New question 2/ "In abandoning a previous account and starting a new one" is what you wrote in your statement. Opposition states that there was approximately a year of overlap. Can you explain this discrepancy? Lara 20:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can I transfer these to the questions section? Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, by all means. Lara 21:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. I am open to supporting in the future, but not yet. And I must say Aitias's comment seems designed to be so ridiculous as to discourage anyone from signing their name beneath his. I see no hypocrisy whatsoever in the oppose section. --JayHenry (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Neutral until I further understand At this point, I don't feel that I understand what happened well enough for a support or oppose at this point. I'll look into the Arbcom ruling. Until then Neutral. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 21:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Unfortunately, it is clear that the trust of the community has been violated. Because I am not familiar with the issue at hand, and because I don't believe piling on is a good idea, I can't bring myself to oppose, but I also cannot support this candidate at this time. I am certainly open to support in the future, however, should the candidate prove that it is warranted. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Neutral While I was unfamiliar with your situation, I have read over what WJB wrote and while I cannot support you per your past behavior, I also believe that piling-on isn't the best response either, so my !vote is neutral. I believe the community has sent the message that you are simply not trusted with the tools at this point in time, if ever again. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 22:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Before I even begin to state my opinion on the Sam Blacketer/Dbiv (a.k.a. Fys) issue, I want to make it clear that I am not saying this as a supporter of evasive sockpuppetry, nor am I trying to create any sense of paranoia. But every now and then, there will be people who will game the system — nothing is flawless, and it never will be. There will be editors who are clever enough to create a sockpuppet, keep it hidden from scrutiny, and remain undetected long enough to gain adminship — and in this exceptional case, ArbCom membership. And cases like Pastor Theo, Law, and Sam are just known incidents of this happening; I'm sure there are a number of other editors who have made a successful clean start under a new username, changed their editing habits, and have gained community trust without any suspicion whatsoever. It hardly matters whether anyone's in favour of it or not, it's going to happen. Sam was one such editor who wanted to make a clean start, and was successful in doing so for over two years — it wasn't until May of last year when everything came to light. I personally would like to support Sam, I really would, because I strongly believe in giving second chances and he's done a lot of good for ArbCom. But the fact is, he's done so under the guise of who we believed to be a different editor. Now we have to evaluate his suitability for this role based on what we know, and we know he has used deception to gain and keep one of the site's highest positions of trust. This sort of thing just can't be ignored. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. ... on the fence and waiting for more answers. I quite liked the person who I have known as Sam Blacketer, and think that Fsys/Dbiv belongs in a bygone era of the project. My gut tells me that you have not used other accounts since Sam Blacketer, however I can't support until you answer the direct question. My guess is that Jimbo never asked you to identify yourself, which means you never lied directly, however I can't support until you answer the direct question. I'd like to believe that you had planned to retire from Arbcom anyway, but I expect that your plan to retire was due to being aware that this was going to blow up soon.
    p.s. I really don't like the second half of point 12. Had you identified yourself fully (a prerequisite for oversight and Arbcom), the link between the accounts would have been known to the committee. If you had used oversight to remove some really old & troublesome diffs in order to prevent the public learning of this, your action would have only highlighted it, and you should have been stripped of all tools for inappropriate usage. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Neutral. I'm all for giving editors second (and third...) chances. And the candidate has done good work recently, so they would certainly be worth a look. I'll be honest, though - the instant this RFA was filed without links to all previous accounts, you lost my support. For all that adminship is not a big deal, it is a position that relies entirely on trust. When you block someone, the uninvolved editor (or reader, or observer, or what have you) has to know that you did so for the good of the project. An RFA that included full disclosure of what happened, with which accounts, would have been much more successful. Some repentance would've been helpful, as well. This RFA seems unlikely to pass - and your next attempt, perhaps in Fall 2010 or Winter 2011, will be opposed by many citing RFA/Sam Blacketer 2. Which is a shame, as you've done a great deal for the project over several years. So, for your good work, I can't oppose - but can't support, either. Best, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Neutral. I'm a strong supporter of admins being open to recall and I'd like to see more admins do it (and a firmer consensus for a proceddure) and, based on that alone, I'd be tempted to support. In addition, your answers to most of the questions show you obviously know what you're doing with the tools and I don't think you would abuse the tools if you were re-appointed. However, I'm afraid many of the opposers raise enough reasoanble doubt that it leaves me uncertain. Thus, while I do not feel compelled to oppose, I cannot support you. HJMitchell You rang? 14:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Neutral – I'm really not sure here. Has Sam misused the trust of the community through sock puppetry? Yes. Has he demonstrated, while sitting on the Arbitration Committee or as an administrator for that matter, that he was not burned down the site or otherwise caused any other huge uproar (besides the normal flack admins and Arbitrators get)? Yes. –MuZemike 17:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Neutral Leaning oppose, but see no point in piling on.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Neutral - there are compelling arguments for both sides. Ultimately I might have supported if you'd laid the whole saga out from the get-go, but the fact you didn't, and I don't get a flavour of remorse here but rather justification. That more than anything shifts me into a doubt-zone. Sorry. I think you might be better off withdrawing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Neutral. Probably can do the tasks standing on his head, but he doesn't seem sufficiently aware of the damage caused by abusing multiple accounts and standing for ArbCom at the same time. Basically, he took the piss and should have known better. More time and further acknowledgement of wrongdoings is needed before I'll support. Fences&Windows 23:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Neutral Definitely capable. Rituals sought by some are meaningless, to be sure. And anyone who wants power is always to be mistrusted. Misleading folks was not good either. I can not quite reach "support" but I am a long way from "oppose." Collect (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Neutral: Technically neutral, but 0% support or respect. There has been something of a (voluntary) bar established by many oppose !votes of being longer-term editors more familiar with the matter that it's out of my league to discuss further. Is the candidate qualified? Yes... but given the ridiculously silly things many RfAs get opposed to now, knowing someone with tools had performed some basic cardinal sins such as unblocking their puppet and deliberately misleading ArbCom continuously? These are honest-to-god worries based in policy that are pointing at countless violation of basic policies. Makes me ill, honesty. If any single admin or user today attempted any one of the multiple layers of deception and subversion seen here we'd likely see an indef block. Period. Most de-sysop requests are over matters completely trivial compared to this all and I'm glad I've learned about this for the highest end of the sense of entitlement seemingly held by many in the admin community. Perhaps this RfA can be a good place to point to in the archives as a case of what lost community trust can do. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category