Iridescent voted off the island Options

[carbuncle]

ArbCom made this announcement a few days ago:

Iridescent
Iridescent (talk · contribs) has been a member of the Arbitration Committee since January 2011. During this time, their contributions to the Committee have been thoughtful and valued when they have been able to participate but they have had long periods of inactivity both as an arbitrator and editor because of unavoidable off-wiki commitments. They have had only minimal activity as an arbitrator since June 2011 and have not edited Wikipedia for more than one month.

The Arbitration Policy provides that the Arbitration Committee may remove one of its members who is unable to "participate conscientiously in the Committee's activities and deliberations." However, the Committee would prefer to implement this provision only as a last resort. Recent attempts have been made to contact Iridescent and inquire as to whether they expect soon to be able to return to regular participation as an arbitrator, or alternatively, if they would tender their resignation from the Committee on account of their present unavailability to serve (thereby creating a vacancy that can be filled by the community at the upcoming Arbitration Committee elections).

Having not had success in contacting Iridescent, the Arbitration Committee has resolved to remove Iridescent from the Committee pursuant to Section 1.3 of the Arbitration Policy, based solely on their apparent unavailability to serve and not for any other cause.

The Committee thanks Iridescent for their past service on the committee and their extensive contributions elsewhere on the project.

Supporting resolution: Casliber; Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry; Coren; David Fuchs; Elen of the Roads; Jclemens; John Vandenberg; Kirill Lokshin; Newyorkbrad; PhilKnight; Risker; Roger Davies; SirFozzie; Xeno.
Opposing resolution: Mailer diablo.
Not voting/inactive: Cool Hand Luke.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xenotalk 22:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments left on the talk page calling Iridescent both "he" and "she" make me wonder if perhaps Iridescent might be interested in this WR thread about men who pretend to be women on WP...

[powercorrupts]

"The Committee thanks Iridescent for their past service on the committee and their extensive contributions elsewhere on the project."

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) That's one way 'round it.

[gomi]

Was Iridescent the one upon whom suspicion fell concerning the Arb-L archive leak?

[radek]

Was Iridescent the one upon whom suspicion fell concerning the Arb-L archive leak?

Some, but nothing beyond just your usual baseless speculation.

[tarantino]

Comments left on the talk page calling Iridescent both "he" and "she" make me wonder if perhaps Iridescent might be interested in this WR thread about men who pretend to be women on WP...

I've never seen where he promoted that deception, beyond never correcting people who presumed he was a she.

His first upload to commons confirms that he is a he.

[thekohser]

Was Iridescent the one upon whom suspicion fell concerning the Arb-L archive leak?

Some, but nothing beyond just your usual baseless speculation.

Except that there were many facts which cast reasonable suspicion on his account. He's still a hero for that, nonetheless. Those leaks helped me to understand that the ArbCom was tracking my personal vacation travels with family. But somehow I'm a creep for sharing publicly-available documents about the founder of the Wikimedia Foundation.

If it was you, Iridescent... good work.

[Ottava]

Was Iridescent the one upon whom suspicion fell concerning the Arb-L archive leak?

Some, but nothing beyond just your usual baseless speculation.

Except that there were many facts which cast reasonable suspicion on his account. He's still a hero for that, nonetheless. Those leaks helped me to understand that the ArbCom was tracking my personal vacation travels with family. But somehow I'm a creep for sharing publicly-available documents about the founder of the Wikimedia Foundation.

If it was you, Iridescent... good work.

To be honest, if it was Iridescent there probably would have been a lot more discussions revealed. Iridescent was involved in many of the classic disputes and had a lot of knowledge of what would be the most important information to shine on the problematic areas.

I know from my own problems with ArbCom and some stuff shared by others, that there is a lot left out even when the individual matters pertaining to us were "released". Iridescent wouldn't have left out those key bits.

[A Horse With No Name]

"The Committee thanks Iridescent for their past service on the committee and their extensive contributions elsewhere on the project."

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) That's one way 'round it.

Did Arbcom finally uncover evidence of Iridescent's sockpuppetry? If so, "their" would be the best fit.

And, yes, Iridescent is a guy.

[Silver seren]

It's interesting that there are opposers at all to this, let alone Mailer diablo. I haven't ever interacted with him/her before as far as I can remember and never seen them editing in any areas i'm in. Any story going on there?

[powercorrupts]

"The Committee thanks Iridescent for their past service on the committee and their extensive contributions elsewhere on the project."

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) That's one way 'round it.

Did Arbcom finally uncover evidence of Iridescent's sockpuppetry? If so, "their" would be the best fit.

And, yes, Iridescent is a guy.

I must say he always seemed female to me. Perhaps he's a homosexual gentleman, a little on the pink side. Any accounts you suspect him of having? (don't say Malleus Fatuorum).

[A Horse With No Name]

Any accounts you suspect him of having?

Well, at this point I can't see what harm is done in letting the proverbial cat out of the bag.

Back in March 2010, Iridescent and I were in a PM conversation about a sockpuppeteer who recently failed at RfA. This is a verbatim quote I received from Iri on the subject of socking:

"You really ought to come back; with the new crop there's a lot of entertainment to be had, particularly in poking Coldplay Expert. I've developed a new ritual of creating a couple of throwaway accounts each day and adding his talkpage to their watchlists; you can see him getting more and more puzzled as to why so many people are watching him."

Iri had separately bragged to me about editing via proxies, which may explain why he was never caught socking.

My challenges to Iri and Arbcom are simple:

To Iri: please identify all of your Wikipedia accounts.

To Arbcom: is it acceptable for someone who reached the arbitrator level to maintain multiple accounts on WP that serve no purpose except to harass an individual editor?

[Peter Damian]

Any accounts you suspect him of having?

Well, at this point I can't see what harm is done in letting the proverbial cat out of the bag.

Back in March 2010, Iridescent and I were in a PM conversation about a sockpuppeteer who recently failed at RfA. This is a verbatim quote I received from Iri on the subject of socking:

"You really ought to come back; with the new crop there's a lot of entertainment to be had, particularly in poking Coldplay Expert. I've developed a new ritual of creating a couple of throwaway accounts each day and adding his talkpage to their watchlists; you can see him getting more and more puzzled as to why so many people are watching him."

Iri had separately bragged to me about editing via proxies, which may explain why he was never caught socking.

My challenges to Iri and Arbcom are simple:

To Iri: please identify all of your Wikipedia accounts.

To Arbcom: is it acceptable for someone who reached the arbitrator level to maintain multiple accounts on WP that serve no purpose except to harass an individual editor?

Sort of explains why Arbcom were never sympathetic to my complaints about Arbcom socking. Did he/she tell anyone about why they stood for election in the first place. Told to me 'in the strictest confidence' but I imagine 20 other people were told as well.

[A Horse With No Name]

Sort of explains why Arbcom were never sympathetic to my complaints about Arbcom socking.

Arbcom is sympathetic to socking when their friends are the ones doing it - most notably with the Law/Undertow affair, when it was shown that at least two arbitrators were aware that a sockpuppeteer was elevated to adminship and half of Arbcom blatantly refused to answer a simple yes-or-no question regarding their awareness of the charade.

Did he/she tell anyone about why they stood for election in the first place. Told to me 'in the strictest confidence' but I imagine 20 other people were told as well.

You might as well spill the beans, Petey - I suspect it had nothing to do with the pursuit of academic excellence.

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

[Peter Damian]

You might as well spill the beans, Petey - I suspect it had nothing to do with the pursuit of academic excellence.

See below. I never approved of that. He/she was making it clear that they had little time for Arbcom, had no appetite for actually doing anything. And that's exactly what happened. I sent an email later suggesting they step down and let Sandstein and co take over, since that would do much more good.

Indeed, I voted against him/her in that election and voted for Sandstein and FT2. And someone else interesting, can't remember who.

Eva Destruction Re:Good luck, Sat 27th November 2010, 12:43am
Don't repeat this, but David Fuchs and I (and for all I know some of the others) are both standing purely because we were asked to, to try to stave off the crisis of Sandstein winning a seat and Jimmy Wales then having either to exercise his veto regardless of the crisis it would trigger, or letting him have the checkuser/oversight powers which go with an Arbcom seat and go on a block-and-delete spree against everyone who he thinks is an Enemy Of The Wiki (which is virtually everyone). It's not something I've any particular interest in doing. I've already warned them I'm unlikely to be in a position to actually do very much—unlike most of them, it seems, I have a real job and don't have the luxury of the time to spend 30 hours a week reading XXXXXX and his buddies' rambling emails. I'm a bit uncomfortable that some people seem to be making me out to be some kind of knight riding to Wikipedia's rescue, since my role will probably boil down to "make the occasional comment so I don't appear totally inactive, and keep the seat occupied to stop Sarek getting ideas".

Don't know about meetups; my hours are unpredictable. I definitely won't be available for the December one.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Ottava]

Eva Destruction Re:Good luck, Sat 27th November 2010, 12:43am
Don't repeat this, but David Fuchs and I (and for all I know some of the others) are both standing purely because we were asked to, to try to stave off the crisis of Sandstein winning a seat and Jimmy Wales then having either to exercise his veto regardless of the crisis it would trigger, or letting him have the checkuser/oversight powers which go with an Arbcom seat and go on a block-and-delete spree against everyone who he thinks is an Enemy Of The Wiki (which is virtually everyone). It's not something I've any particular interest in doing. I've already warned them I'm unlikely to be in a position to actually do very much—unlike most of them, it seems, I have a real job and don't have the luxury of the time to spend 30 hours a week reading Ottava and his buddies' rambling emails. I'm a bit uncomfortable that some people seem to be making me out to be some kind of knight riding to Wikipedia's rescue, since my role will probably boil down to "make the occasional comment so I don't appear totally inactive, and keep the seat occupied to stop Sarek getting ideas".

Don't know about meetups; my hours are unpredictable. I definitely won't be available for the December one.

It is a funny quote. You can see from the actual leaked emails that mine were quite short and were rather straight to the point.

But as many people have stated, my last appeal was split 50/50 and the deciding vote could have been Iridescent's. My appeal was basically up for a vote for 4 months and Iridescent went inactive during that time. Iridescent was emailed by multiple people about that issue in general and didn't want to weigh in. I guess not weighing in saved him from saying no. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

Don't repeat this, but David Fuchs and I (and for all I know some of the others) are both standing purely because we were asked to, to try to stave off the crisis of Sandstein winning a seat...I've already warned them I'm unlikely to be in a position to actually do very much—unlike most of them, it seems, I have a real job

Oh really? And who asked these guys to run/stand for office?

Were the Arbcom members intentionally gaming the system by putting up phony seat-fillers because they did not want people they disliked to get elected?

This is getting more and more interesting. I think the Arbitrators that go slumming here need to do some explaining.

[A Horse With No Name]

But as many people have stated, my last appeal was split 50/50 and the deciding vote could have been Iridescent's.

For the record, Big O, wasn't the original blocking sentence supposed to be only for 12 months - but it somehow got extended permanently in violation of WP rules?

[Peter Damian]

Don't repeat this, but David Fuchs and I (and for all I know some of the others) are both standing purely because we were asked to, to try to stave off the crisis of Sandstein winning a seat...I've already warned them I'm unlikely to be in a position to actually do very much—unlike most of them, it seems, I have a real job

Oh really? And who asked these guys to run/stand for office?

Were the Arbcom members intentionally gaming the system by putting up phony seat-fillers because they did not want people they disliked to get elected?

This is getting more and more interesting. I think the Arbitrators that go slumming here need to do some explaining.

Er. yes. I've always wondered who exactly who 'them' was, though I have a hunch. And don't forget the other piece of gaming, which was to blackmail FT2 into standing down on wholly spurious grounds. What a waste of my vote.

[MZMcBride]

Back in March 2010, Iridescent and I were in a PM conversation about a sockpuppeteer who recently failed at RfA. This is a verbatim quote I received from Iri on the subject of socking:

"You really ought to come back; with the new crop there's a lot of entertainment to be had, particularly in poking Coldplay Expert. I've developed a new ritual of creating a couple of throwaway accounts each day and adding his talkpage to their watchlists; you can see him getting more and more puzzled as to why so many people are watching him."

Iri had separately bragged to me about editing via proxies, which may explain why he was never caught socking.

I find it amusing that you post with the notion that you have any credibility.

[Ottava]

Back in March 2010, Iridescent and I were in a PM conversation about a sockpuppeteer who recently failed at RfA. This is a verbatim quote I received from Iri on the subject of socking:

"You really ought to come back; with the new crop there's a lot of entertainment to be had, particularly in poking Coldplay Expert. I've developed a new ritual of creating a couple of throwaway accounts each day and adding his talkpage to their watchlists; you can see him getting more and more puzzled as to why so many people are watching him."

Iri had separately bragged to me about editing via proxies, which may explain why he was never caught socking.

I find it amusing that you post with the notion that you have any credibility.

I find it interesting that you do the same. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)



By the way, Peter, I think David Fuchs was one of the people I pleaded with to run. I asked a few of the FAC people to run. I think SandyGeorgia and some others did the same.