Iridescent, Who is he Options

[Peter Damian]

How many of you have had PMs or emails from someone claiming to be Iridescent?

[Malleus]

How many of you have had PMs or emails from someone claiming to be Iridescent?

I obviously have, as the leaks demonstrate. Why do you ask?

[TheKartingWikipedian]

Who indeed. I suspect it's a female of the species. At one point I thought it was the wife of Mr Cheese but I'm not so certain now.

[Peter Damian]

How many of you have had PMs or emails from someone claiming to be Iridescent?

I obviously have, as the leaks demonstrate. Why do you ask?

Curiosity, of course.

[Theanima]

AFAIK he/she/it is an American (possibly from New York) aged approximately 35 currently living in London, possibly working for the metropolitan police. With an interest in railways, people with eating disorders, graveyards and parks amongst other things.

[RMHED]

It's always nice to be right.

[Peter Damian]

AFAIK he/she/it is an American (possibly from New York) aged approximately 35 currently living in London, possibly working for the metropolitan police. With an interest in railways, people with eating disorders, graveyards and parks amongst other things.

That was exactly my impression, even down to the age. But the question was, do many people get PMs from this person?

[MZMcBride]

It's always nice to be right.

You're a modern-day Nostradamus.

[RMHED]

It's always nice to be right.

You're a modern-day Nostradamus.

Thank you. It was pretty impressive wasn't it.*


*Please note RMHED has had a sarcasm detection bypass.

[Theanima]

AFAIK he/she/it is an American (possibly from New York) aged approximately 35 currently living in London, possibly working for the metropolitan police. With an interest in railways, people with eating disorders, graveyards and parks amongst other things.

That was exactly my impression, even down to the age. But the question was, do many people get PMs from this person?

Why do you ask? What would that tell you?

[Malleus]

AFAIK he/she/it is an American (possibly from New York) aged approximately 35 currently living in London, possibly working for the metropolitan police. With an interest in railways, people with eating disorders, graveyards and parks amongst other things.

That was exactly my impression, even down to the age. But the question was, do many people get PMs from this person?

Do you mean PMs from this forum? If so the answer is again yes; I've had PMs from Iridescent from here.

[Zoloft]

He lives in a pineapple under the sea. Absorbent and yellow and porous is he.

[Ceoil]

This thread is beneeth contempt. Its actually sad, and a bit frightening.

[Malleus]

This thread is beneeth contempt. Its actually sad, and a bit frightening.

That depends on what the thrust of this thread is, which I still don't understand. Is Iridescent a real person? I think so. Who is Iridescent? Surely that's nobody's business but his own.

[A Horse With No Name]

AFAIK he/she/it is an American (possibly from New York) aged approximately 35 currently living in London, possibly working for the metropolitan police. With an interest in railways, people with eating disorders, graveyards and parks amongst other things.

This individual's real life identity is not much of a secret. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Ceoil]

This thread is beneeth contempt. Its actually sad, and a bit frightening.

Iridescent is so obviouly a good, together, well judged person, I'm amazed that this was opened. I doubt that there is a score bing settled, it probably just a general random nastly, whatever.

[Malleus]

This thread is beneeth contempt. Its actually sad, and a bit frightening.

Iridescent is so obviouly a good, together, well judged person, I'm amazed that this was opened. I doubt that there is a score bing settled, it probably just a general random nastly, whatever.

I think there are many unexplained aspects of this series of leaks. Not least of which is that given all the juicy stuff that's subsequently been posted why did it begin with a rather uninteresting exchange of emails between Iridescent and me?

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[Ceoil]

The leaker seems young and stupid, not very collected, not able to tell the value of what he had access to. So its all bland.

[The Adversary]

<> given all the juicy stuff that's subsequently been posted why did it begin with a rather uninteresting exchange of emails between Iridescent and me?

'Couse the leaker doesn't like you?

[gomi]

The leaker seems young and stupid, not very collected, not able to tell the value of what he had access to. So its all bland.

The daily by-product of any bureaucracy is bound to be bland -- that is the nature of bureaucracies. Try reading the Congressional Register some time. The gold isn't in big nuggets, it is dust scattered hither and yon, and it takes correlation to dig it out. Malice isn't solving a problem for us, he/she is posing one, which it is up to us to solve.

It has already been said (on Wikipedia) that this will ultimately provide a "sympathy backlash" for ArbCom, and that may be true. So far, the evidence is that they are occasionally rude, they are cavalier in making secret decisions, but in comparatively clear-cut cases, but other than revealing (yet another) Wikipedia Secret Society™, there isn't much that most of us didn't know.

That said, there is more to come, so stay tuned.

[Peter Damian]

This thread is beneeth contempt. Its actually sad, and a bit frightening.

Iridescent is so obviouly a good, together, well judged person, I'm amazed that this was opened. I doubt that there is a score bing settled, it probably just a general random nastly, whatever.

A very likeable, insightful person with a delicious sense of humour, yes. But also sits on a influential committee which has governance over a very large and important website which aims to deliver the sum of human knowledge to every person on the planet.

[thekohser]

Now the ArbCom is back-pedaling on Iridescent's role (if any) in the leaks. Amazing!

[Milton Roe]

Now the ArbCom is back-pedaling on Iridescent's role (if any) in the leaks. Amazing!

There are not backpeddling. Amalthea evidently didn't read beyond the line quoted, as Coren said in the next sentence that nobody thought it was Iridescent, even at the beginning.

An investigation of the technical aspects of the leak have shown that the leak was mailed by arbitrator Iridescent's Yahoo mail account from a server located in Iran, indicating that the person responsible for the leak was in control of that mail account. Given that it seemed highly improbable that Iridescent himself would have had the wherewithal to use a proxy computer in a foreign jurisdiction yet use a mail account directly associated with him, the scenario that the leak was a wilful act from Iridescent was not credible.

A proxy server in IRAN? You have to admire the panache of somebody who can route anything through a server in Iran. That's hacker/tech nose-thumbing to the max. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

Moreover, there's absolutely no evidence Iridescent's account was hacked. - Roger Davies 10:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Since Iridescent is a regular participant on this website, perhaps he would like to discuss this with his WR friends?

[thekohser]

Now the ArbCom is back-pedaling on Iridescent's role (if any) in the leaks. Amazing!

There are not backpeddling. Amalthea evidently didn't read beyond the line quoted, as Coren said in the next sentence that nobody thought it was Iridescent, even at the beginning.

Milton, you're screwing up here.

Coren said this:

An investigation of the technical aspects of the leak have shown that the leak was mailed by arbitrator Iridescent's Yahoo mail account from a server located in Iran, indicating that the person responsible for the leak was in control of that mail account. Given that it seemed highly improbable that Iridescent himself would have had the wherewithal to use a proxy computer in a foreign jurisdiction yet use a mail account directly associated with him, the scenario that the leak was a wilful act from Iridescent was not credible.

At that time, I emailed the list and arbitrator Risker directly (who is one of the arbitrators in technical control of the mailing lists and the secure wikis) that Iridescent's mail account was compromised, and that it should be immediately removed from all private lists and wikis. This was done shortly, thus ensuring that whoever was in control of Iridescent's email account would get no further access.

Agreed that "nobody thought is was (willfully) Iridescent". But, Iridescent's Yahoo account was absolutely pointed to as "compromised".

Now, Roger Davies is saying "there's absolutely no evidence Iridescent's account was hacked".

That's back-pedaling.

[A Horse With No Name]

Agreed that "nobody thought is was (willfully) Iridescent". But, Iridescent's Yahoo account was absolutely pointed to as "compromised".

Now, Roger Davies is saying "there's absolutely no evidence Iridescent's account was hacked".

That's back-pedaling.

Well, if the e-mail account was not hacked...and there are no proxy IPs from Iran...where did the leak come from? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

And as an aside: if I was a hacker, the very last thing I would do with a purloined e-mail account is go out of my way to embarrass Malleus or rake up some old Ottava stuff for the amusement of 25 people on WR. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

[Milton Roe]

Agreed that "nobody thought is was (willfully) Iridescent". But, Iridescent's Yahoo account was absolutely pointed to as "compromised".

Now, Roger Davies is saying "there's absolutely no evidence Iridescent's account was hacked".

That's back-pedaling.

Yeah, you've got me. Davies' brief response worked to its purpose, which was to hide the screwup as much as possible without actually lying.

So, Coren's statement "An investigation of the technical aspects of the leak have shown that the leak was mailed by arbitrator Iridescent's Yahoo mail account from a server located in Iran" turned out to be a misinterpretation or data falsification? Amalthea 17:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Correct. Roger Davies talk 17:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, was it "misinterpretation or data falsification"? Inquiring minds want to know. Like, is this just Irridescent's normal TOR usage, which happened to have come through Iran this time? Or is this some gonzo interpretation of Risker that put "Iran" in where nothing went through Iran at all?

[Kelly Martin]

I think that we do not have sufficient evidence to conclude one way or the other about whether or not MaliceAforethought is Iridescent, or is someone else working in concert with MaliceAforethought. We know from experience that the Arbitration Committee is not competent at interpreting technical evidence: not only do most of them not understand it (not even those of them, like Coren, who putatively work in the industry), but, even more importantly, they are also very prone to confirmation bias and thus see what they want to see, not what is actually there. Furthermore, the statements that have been made by representatives of the Committee on this issue are confusing, contradictory, and incomplete. I'd say that the jury is out and must remain out on the underlying question.

[Malleus]

And as an aside: if I was a hacker, the very last thing I would do with a purloined e-mail account is go out of my way to embarrass Malleus or rake up some old Ottava stuff for the amusement of 25 people on WR. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

That's still one of the things I find most puzzling about this affair. And obviously if the source of this leak hasn't been discovered then of course there's no reason to believe the assurances that it's been plugged.

[Milton Roe]

And as an aside: if I was a hacker, the very last thing I would do with a purloined e-mail account is go out of my way to embarrass Malleus or rake up some old Ottava stuff for the amusement of 25 people on WR. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

That's still one of the things I find most puzzling about this affair. And obviously if the source of this leak hasn't been discovered then of course there's no reason to believe the assurances that it's been plugged.

There actually ARE standard ways of narrowing down where leaks are coming from in a large organization where a large number of people must have access to the same information. But Arbcom, following the tradition of WP, is not going to look to see how the real-world deals with this stuff, because they're too full of themselves. So this is entertaining.

[The Adversary]

A proxy server in IRAN? You have to admire the panache of somebody who can route anything through a server in Iran. That's hacker/tech nose-thumbing to the max. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

It's not that difficult. There are to my knowledge currently two Tor nodes that appear to be in Iran.

Yes, we should have known. "Someone" on WR knows all about Tor nodes. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[melloden]

A proxy server in IRAN? You have to admire the panache of somebody who can route anything through a server in Iran. That's hacker/tech nose-thumbing to the max. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

It's not that difficult. There are to my knowledge currently two Tor nodes that appear to be in Iran.

Yes, we should have known. "Someone" on WR knows all about Tor nodes. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Is there no sysadmin or whatnot of WR that can see MaliceAforethought's IP address? Although that would likely go back to Tor, anyway.

[gomi]

Malice contributes to WR through an open proxy that does not appear to be a Tor proxy. It geolocates to Beijing, for what it's worth. We do not prohibit contribution in this manner, and don't -- by and large -- scrutinize our members the way Wikipedia does.

Let me remind everyone that Malice does not come with any special credibility. He/she/it has not been "vetted" by the Review, nor are we in a position to cast aspersions on the validity of his postings. You'll all need to make those decisions on your own.

[Abd]

Let me remind everyone that Malice does not come with any special credibility. He/she/it has not been "vetted" by the Review, nor are we in a position to cast aspersions on the validity of his postings. You'll all need to make those decisions on your own.

Thanks, Gomi.

The general credibility of Malice's postings is effectively confirmed by ArbComm's reaction. However, without casting any aspersions on Malice, liars will often start with the truth. Initial credibility does not equal final accuracy.

Nevertheless, the appearance of uncontradicted information here leads me to a general assumption that it's accurate. I've not seen, in fact, any claims of inaccuracy, though I might easily have missed some in the flood.

My advice to the EEML people when their list was hacked was to immediately reveal an authoritative archive. While that may seem counterintuitive, the actual result of not doing that was that cherry-picked "evidence" was put up by arbitrators themselves (in a role which mixed up prosecutor and judge, and at least one arb seemed to have no shame about declaring an intention to make an example of the EEML people. A hanging judge.

ArbComm should never have set up a mailing list to be used for routine decision-making, unless that list were public. A private list could have been used for any matter *requiring* privacy, which should have been a strict determination, and never allowed to become routine.

In fact, though, they obviously care nothing for transparency and have no concept of ArbComm as a servant of the community. Much of the discussions are about looking good, avoiding negative appearance while being unconcerned about the underlying realities.

[ComeGetMe]

ArbComm should never have set up a mailing list to be used for routine decision-making, unless that list were public. A private list could have been used for any matter *requiring* privacy, which should have been a strict determination, and never allowed to become routine.

In fact, though, they obviously care nothing for transparency and have no concept of ArbComm as a servant of the community. Much of the discussions are about looking good, avoiding negative appearance while being unconcerned about the underlying realities.

Keeping the peanut-throwers from the decision makers is a good thing - but only for certain sensitive decisions. It should not be used for routine decision-making.

Just before the Arbcom committee elections, all archives should be made public.

I'd vote for that!

[Tex]

I would sure like something more from Iridescent than what he has currently stated publically about the leaks.

Tex

This post has been edited by Tex:

[NuclearWarfare]

I would sure like something more from Iridescent than what he has currently stated publically about the leaks.

Tex

What exactly do you want Iridescent to say that he hasn't already?

[Peter Damian]

I am wondering if they were too trusting and gave access to someone who asked for a peep, and the inevitable happened. Malice did say at the beginning that 'stupid' was the real explanation. That would explain the silence and the embarrassment.

But I am speculating.

[A Horse With No Name]

I am wondering if they were too trusting and gave access to someone who asked for a peep, and the inevitable happened. Malice did say at the beginning that 'stupid' was the real explanation. That would explain the silence and the embarrassment.

But I am speculating.

Iridescent left a comment on his talk page that smells of evasion. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Malleus]

I am wondering if they were too trusting and gave access to someone who asked for a peep, and the inevitable happened. Malice did say at the beginning that 'stupid' was the real explanation. That would explain the silence and the embarrassment.

But I am speculating.

Iridescent left a comment on his talk page that smells of evasion. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

There are very few administrators that I trust and even fewer arbitrators, but Iridescent is one of those that I do trust. I see nothing evasive there, just a simple statement of fact. It's inevitable that some suspicion will hang over Iridescent until the source of the leak is established. Or more correctly, it's inevitable that some suspicion will hang over Iridescent for ever, as the source of the leak even if it's ever discovered, which it ought already to have been, will never be admitted.

[Theanima]

I seriously doubt it was Iridescent - or at least, not him willingly.

Doesn't change the fact he's a pompous twit.

[ComeGetMe]

I seriously doubt it was Iridescent - or at least, not him willingly.

Doesn't change the fact he's a pompous twit.

It's his own fault for leaving himself logged onto a public computer (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Abd]

There are very few administrators that I trust and even fewer arbitrators, but Iridescent is one of those that I do trust. I see nothing evasive there, just a simple statement of fact.

When one is asked a question, directly, and does not answer the question plainly, but with "facts" that may imply an answer but do not actually state it, the response may be called "evasive," even if not intended to be.

However, I also have a strong trust in Iridescent. I believed, by the way, that Iridescent was female, I have no idea where that came from. Doesn't matter. S/he demonstrated integrity in the past; trivia players may remember that my first block was by Iridescent, and, while s/he erred, the error was of no consequence because the real question was my relationship to the wiki, and Iridescent wisely stepped back and let that fall where it fell.

Later, Iridescent acknowledged that blocking me had caused much thought, as a possible error. I assured Iridescent that I felt no harm from it. That first block was very uncomfortable for me, but I was the cause of my own discomfort, not the blocking administrator, who was merely making a reasonable action based on appearances, easily reversible.

[powercorrupts]

There are very few administrators that I trust and even fewer arbitrators, but Iridescent is one of those that I do trust. I see nothing evasive there, just a simple statement of fact.

When one is asked a question, directly, and does not answer the question plainly, but with "facts" that may imply an answer but do not actually state it, the response may be called "evasive," even if not intended to be.

However, I also have a strong trust in Iridescent. I believed, by the way, that Iridescent was female, I have no idea where that came from. Doesn't matter. S/he demonstrated integrity in the past; trivia players may remember that my first block was by Iridescent, and, while s/he erred, the error was of no consequence because the real question was my relationship to the wiki, and Iridescent wisely stepped back and let that fall where it fell.

Later, Iridescent acknowledged that blocking me had caused much thought, as a possible error. I assured Iridescent that I felt no harm from it. That first block was very uncomfortable for me, but I was the cause of my own discomfort, not the blocking administrator, who was merely making a reasonable action based on appearances, easily reversible.

The 'she' thing came from him being constantly referred to as "her" and never putting anyone straight. That and the 'cutesy' picture of a couple of rabbits on his user page. Wikipedia is something of a perversion, there is no doubt about that.

And his 'Eva' Destruction WR identity as well of course. Eva being, very simply, a female name. Interestingly, MaliceAForethought follows the same pattern, and the first 'revelation' was about Iridescent too, Though Malleus clearly thinks it was all about him, he has a point in that the first post could be revealing. Although you could also argue that Iridescent and Malleus are probably the two most regularly-posting 'big name' Wikipedians on WR, and the leaker had to start somewhere.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[Theanima]

There are very few administrators that I trust and even fewer arbitrators, but Iridescent is one of those that I do trust. I see nothing evasive there, just a simple statement of fact.

When one is asked a question, directly, and does not answer the question plainly, but with "facts" that may imply an answer but do not actually state it, the response may be called "evasive," even if not intended to be.

However, I also have a strong trust in Iridescent. I believed, by the way, that Iridescent was female, I have no idea where that came from. Doesn't matter. S/he demonstrated integrity in the past; trivia players may remember that my first block was by Iridescent, and, while s/he erred, the error was of no consequence because the real question was my relationship to the wiki, and Iridescent wisely stepped back and let that fall where it fell.

Later, Iridescent acknowledged that blocking me had caused much thought, as a possible error. I assured Iridescent that I felt no harm from it. That first block was very uncomfortable for me, but I was the cause of my own discomfort, not the blocking administrator, who was merely making a reasonable action based on appearances, easily reversible.

The 'she' thing came from him being constantly referred to as "her" and never putting anyone straight. That and the 'cutesy' picture of a couple of rabbits on his user page. Wikipedia is something of a perversion, there is no doubt about that.

Also the pink and yellow sig in the cute font.

[lilburne]

And his 'Eva' Destruction WR identity as well of course. Eva being, very simply, a female name. Interestingly, MaliceAForethought follows the same pattern, and the first 'revelation' was about Iridescent too, Though Malleus clearly thinks it was all about him, he has a point in that the first post could be revealing. Although you could also argue that Iridescent and Malleus are probably the two most regularly-posting 'big name' Wikipedians on WR, and the leaker had to start somewhere.

You don't think the phonetic similarity between the two user ames is significant?

[powercorrupts]

There are very few administrators that I trust and even fewer arbitrators, but Iridescent is one of those that I do trust. I see nothing evasive there, just a simple statement of fact.

When one is asked a question, directly, and does not answer the question plainly, but with "facts" that may imply an answer but do not actually state it, the response may be called "evasive," even if not intended to be.

However, I also have a strong trust in Iridescent. I believed, by the way, that Iridescent was female, I have no idea where that came from. Doesn't matter. S/he demonstrated integrity in the past; trivia players may remember that my first block was by Iridescent, and, while s/he erred, the error was of no consequence because the real question was my relationship to the wiki, and Iridescent wisely stepped back and let that fall where it fell.

Later, Iridescent acknowledged that blocking me had caused much thought, as a possible error. I assured Iridescent that I felt no harm from it. That first block was very uncomfortable for me, but I was the cause of my own discomfort, not the blocking administrator, who was merely making a reasonable action based on appearances, easily reversible.

The 'she' thing came from him being constantly referred to as "her" and never putting anyone straight. That and the 'cutesy' picture of a couple of rabbits on his user page. Wikipedia is something of a perversion, there is no doubt about that.

Also the pink and yellow sig in the cute font.

He could be just a gay and girly man of course, The perversity is all in the bullshit.

And his 'Eva' Destruction WR identity as well of course. Eva being, very simply, a female name. Interestingly, MaliceAForethought follows the same pattern, and the first 'revelation' was about Iridescent too, Though Malleus clearly thinks it was all about him, he has a point in that the first post could be revealing. Although you could also argue that Iridescent and Malleus are probably the two most regularly-posting 'big name' Wikipedians on WR, and the leaker had to start somewhere.

You don't think the phonetic similarity between the two user ames is significant?

To some degree possibly, yes.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[Malleus]

And his 'Eva' Destruction WR identity as well of course. Eva being, very simply, a female name. Interestingly, MaliceAForethought follows the same pattern, and the first 'revelation' was about Iridescent too, Though Malleus clearly thinks it was all about him, he has a point in that the first post could be revealing. Although you could also argue that Iridescent and Malleus are probably the two most regularly-posting 'big name' Wikipedians on WR, and the leaker had to start somewhere.

You don't think the phonetic similarity between the two user ames is significant?

What "phonetic similarity" between which two user names?

[powercorrupts]

And his 'Eva' Destruction WR identity as well of course. Eva being, very simply, a female name. Interestingly, MaliceAForethought follows the same pattern, and the first 'revelation' was about Iridescent too, Though Malleus clearly thinks it was all about him, he has a point in that the first post could be revealing. Although you could also argue that Iridescent and Malleus are probably the two most regularly-posting 'big name' Wikipedians on WR, and the leaker had to start somewhere.

You don't think the phonetic similarity between the two user ames is significant?

What "phonetic similarity" between which two user names?

Eveof and Maliceof initially Malleus, but yes, ok, you too, you too.

[Malleus]

And his 'Eva' Destruction WR identity as well of course. Eva being, very simply, a female name. Interestingly, MaliceAForethought follows the same pattern, and the first 'revelation' was about Iridescent too, Though Malleus clearly thinks it was all about him, he has a point in that the first post could be revealing. Although you could also argue that Iridescent and Malleus are probably the two most regularly-posting 'big name' Wikipedians on WR, and the leaker had to start somewhere.

You don't think the phonetic similarity between the two user ames is significant?

What "phonetic similarity" between which two user names?

Eveof and Maliceof initially Malleus, but yes, ok, you too, you too.

I wasn't volunteering to put myself under suspicion, I was just curious.

[powercorrupts]

And his 'Eva' Destruction WR identity as well of course. Eva being, very simply, a female name. Interestingly, MaliceAForethought follows the same pattern, and the first 'revelation' was about Iridescent too, Though Malleus clearly thinks it was all about him, he has a point in that the first post could be revealing. Although you could also argue that Iridescent and Malleus are probably the two most regularly-posting 'big name' Wikipedians on WR, and the leaker had to start somewhere.

You don't think the phonetic similarity between the two user ames is significant?

What "phonetic similarity" between which two user names?

Eveof and Maliceof initially Malleus, but yes, ok, you too, you too.

I wasn't volunteering to put myself under suspicion, I was just curious.

So you should be, the name's got to indicate at least something with that big A in the middle. Requests or no, the leaker's in total control whoever (and however bright) he is.

[A Horse With No Name]

So...is Iridescent coming back to WP? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

[MZMcBride]

So...is Iridescent coming back to WP? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

Coming back? I don't think she's left (at least not anytime recently).

[radek]

Let me remind everyone that Malice does not come with any special credibility. He/she/it has not been "vetted" by the Review, nor are we in a position to cast aspersions on the validity of his postings. You'll all need to make those decisions on your own.

Thanks, Gomi.

The general credibility of Malice's postings is effectively confirmed by ArbComm's reaction. However, without casting any aspersions on Malice, liars will often start with the truth. Initial credibility does not equal final accuracy.

Nevertheless, the appearance of uncontradicted information here leads me to a general assumption that it's accurate. I've not seen, in fact, any claims of inaccuracy, though I might easily have missed some in the flood.

My advice to the EEML people when their list was hacked was to immediately reveal an authoritative archive. While that may seem counterintuitive, the actual result of not doing that was that cherry-picked "evidence" was put up by arbitrators themselves (in a role which mixed up prosecutor and judge, and at least one arb seemed to have no shame about declaring an intention to make an example of the EEML people. A hanging judge.

ArbComm should never have set up a mailing list to be used for routine decision-making, unless that list were public. A private list could have been used for any matter *requiring* privacy, which should have been a strict determination, and never allowed to become routine.

In fact, though, they obviously care nothing for transparency and have no concept of ArbComm as a servant of the community. Much of the discussions are about looking good, avoiding negative appearance while being unconcerned about the underlying realities.

But, as I think you know, there really was no "authoritative archive" on the EEML. It got deleted way long before the case. Sort of too bad, actually.

I do like how in the EEML case the 2009 ArbCommittee was super quick to assume that the "leak" was an "inside job" by a "whistle blower" - which (in their opinion) gave them the right to read through other people's private emails - but in the present instance 2011 ArbCommittee was super quick to assume that the "leak" was done by an outside "hacker" - which makes it immoral for anyone to read THEIR private emails. Assumptions of (un)ethical convenience. But like I said, to a significant extent, these were different individuals then and now.

[Theanima]

So...is Iridescent coming back to WP? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

Hopefully not.

[A Horse With No Name]

So...is Iridescent coming back to WP? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

Coming back? I don't think she's left (at least not anytime recently).

Oh, so you know about his sockpuppetry too? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[Abd]

But, as I think you know, there really was no "authoritative archive" on the EEML. It got deleted way long before the case. Sort of too bad, actually.

Well, I grabbed a copy before it was deleted. Wasn't this on wikileaks? I forget.

I do like how in the EEML case the 2009 ArbCommittee was super quick to assume that the "leak" was an "inside job" by a "whistle blower" - which (in their opinion) gave them the right to read through other people's private emails - but in the present instance 2011 ArbCommittee was super quick to assume that the "leak" was done by an outside "hacker" - which makes it immoral for anyone to read THEIR private emails. Assumptions of (un)ethical convenience. But like I said, to a significant extent, these were different individuals then and now.

It is possible that ArbComm could have figured out who the leaker was with EEML, but they didn't care, really. It was obvious that the goal of the admin posting selected excerpts from the list had an agenda, exemplary punishment.

They are terrified by the prospect of off-wiki coordination, because Wikipedia is largely defenseless against this, due to the adhocracy. Off-wiki coordination is only allowed for the cabal. You can see this hysteria in, for example, how Esperanza was handled. The real sin of Esperanza? An off-wiki governance mechanism.

What was never shown with EEML was actual harm. There were some technical violations, and some possibilities of harm. One member had posted his password, so that others could sock with it while he was away, allegedly. There is no sign that anyone took him up on it, and I think he was privately reprimanded, but the offer was used to imply that the whole list was guilty of something.

Piotrus was desysopped for an appearance of responding to canvassing, but ... in fact, Piotrus simply semiprotected an article that was under seige by a set of IPs from Russia, and that action was quickly moot, as another admin independently full-protected it when new registered socks showed up to continue the assault.

Piotrus had become aware of a situation due to off-wiki communication, and acted very moderately and appropriately, given the circumstances. The problem was *secret* off-wiki cooperation and community.

Piotrus was about as straight-arrow as any admin I've come to know. He is a sociologist or political scientist, and had written enthusiastic articles, published under peer review, about Wikipedia.

I was curious about what they'd been doing, so I asked to join the list. I was readily admitted, and am still a subscriber. What happened to Piotrus, especially, was sad to see.

Wikipedia is a praying mantis that eats her lovers.

Other admins who had blatantly used their tools to push their own POV, like JzG, were "admonished" without even so much as a "Sorry" from them.

[radek]

Well, I grabbed a copy before it was deleted. Wasn't this on wikileaks? I forget.

You grabbed a copy of the leaked archive, not the "official" archive, because there wasn't one. It got deleted in April 2009, five or so months before the case got started (and before I, and many others, joined)

They are terrified by the prospect of off-wiki coordination, because Wikipedia is largely defenseless against this, due to the adhocracy. Off-wiki coordination is only allowed for the cabal. You can see this hysteria in, for example, how Esperanza was handled. The real sin of Esperanza? An off-wiki governance mechanism.

I'm not sure they were "terrified" per se, since EEML in no way threatened them or their existence. But yes, they did strongly assert their monopoly authority to be the only ones who get to "discuss things in private" and yes, that was the cardinal sin of the mailing list in essence.

What was never shown with EEML was actual harm. There were some technical violations, and some possibilities of harm. One member had posted his password, so that others could sock with it while he was away, allegedly. There is no sign that anyone took him up on it, and I think he was privately reprimanded, but the offer was used to imply that the whole list was guilty of something.

What there was was a lot of hysteria generated by the case with every insane crazy nutzoid - the kind that ArbCom itself has to deal with on regular basis, apparently - coming out of the woodwork to claim that "the EEML made me do it" and trying to finangle an excuse out of it. At the time Diguwren said something like "it's like the Pandora's box got opened up". Which was about right. Unfortunately, at least some of the 2009 ArbComs, like Coren, totally bought into the hysteria and hyperbole.

At the same time, I'm totally willing to admit that some of the people on the list, myself included, on occasion stepped over the line. Hell, you get a bunch of people who do actually care about Wikipedia - in the sense that they still want to make something decent out of it - who edit in a totally fucked up area where insane POV pushing by extremists of various stripes is the order of the day, and additionally where you have to deal with vicious sociopaths who regularly use outing and death threats to try and intimidate folks off the website... and then it's pretty much guaranteed that regular editors will get frustrated and fed up at one point and will eventually start thinking that well, the end justifies the means, so let's start a mailing list to at least let off some steam. So you get some canvassing on AfDs and a lot of honest discussion about how messed up particular users are. It's gonna step over the line sooner or later. But that's a (actually ultimately pretty mild) response to a fundamentally dysfunctional situation which Wikipedia itself had produced.

Piotrus was desysopped for an appearance of responding to canvassing, but ... in fact, Piotrus simply semiprotected an article that was under seige by a set of IPs from Russia, and that action was quickly moot, as another admin independently full-protected it when new registered socks showed up to continue the assault

Piotrus had become aware of a situation due to off-wiki communication, and acted very moderately and appropriately, given the circumstances. The problem was *secret* off-wiki cooperation and community.

Eh. Not only that but Piotrus protected that article to the anti-EEML version - that is the "other" person's version. As an aside, IIRC the anti-EEML IPs and editors who were fucking around on this particular article ("HistoricWarrior" and "Voyevoda" + lots of anon socks) got subsequently sanctioned/banned by Future Perfect - who in no way can be accused of being pro-EEML (in fact he's a bit of a shit) completely independently of any actions by people from the mailing list. Same was true for a good number of the "anti-EEML" crowd - there was no need for EEML to conspire against them in order for them to act like assholes and get themselves banned. It just took the ArbCom case for anyone to actually pay attention.

At some point in the EEML case I tried to bring up the issue of how private correspondence should be dealt with in such cases, in fact I proposed a private hearing along the lines that Roger Davies recently actually put into practice. Of course they didn't give a shit back then, because it wasn't THEIR OWN private info on the line - it's just to bad that it had to happen to the ArbCom itself in order for them to understand the serious nature of this kind of thing. At the time the lynch mob was out and they were all to happy to violate other people's privacy. I'd like to say that these recent leaks are just karma coming back to bite them on their ass - unfortunately, as I've already said, the 2011 ArbComs are mostly a different lot than the 2009 ArbComs. So it is karma coming back alright, but karma being as confused and inept as anything else in this world, it misses its target "by only that much".

(yes, good people, Karma exists but it's often hangover from having had too many drinks with Comeuppance and Charis the night before, so it often comes back at the wrong person)

[A Horse With No Name]

Well, I grabbed a copy before it was deleted. Wasn't this on wikile
Eh. Not only that but Piotrus protected that article to the anti-EEML version - that is the "other" person's version.

Piotrus is one of the very few people on Wikipedia that I respect. He has been treated shamefully and is owed an apology by Arbcom. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

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

[radek]

Well, I grabbed a copy before it was deleted. Wasn't this on wikile
Eh. Not only that but Piotrus protected that article to the anti-EEML version - that is the "other" person's version.

Piotrus is one of the very few people on Wikipedia that I respect. He has been treated shamefully and is owed an apology by Arbcom. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Again, you need to distinguish between the institution "Arbcom" and individuals on it. Piotrus is definitely owed an apology by some individuals (one or two of whom have resigned since then for their own, much more serious, hi-jinks (plagiarism), and at least one of whom is trying to come back under RTV which, as I'm told, he was quite adamant about denying to others - to paraphrase: "Vanished means vanished"!). I don't think Iridescent, KLago, Shell, DFuchs, or whoever got elected onto the committee in the past two years owes Piotrus anything. But yes, there are some on the committee now who were on it back then whose apologies would be in order. Fat chance.

(I can't remember exactly right now, but I think NYBrad was on but he was one of the few reasonable, though drowned out and not-willing-to-stand-up-for-myself, voices back then so I guess he's sort of exempt from this as well)



This post has been edited by radek: