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.

[Peter Damian]

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.

To be credible is to be believable. I believe Horsey. It is entirely consistent with everything else I know.

[mbz1]

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).

Sorry a little bit off the topic, but while we're talking about Malleus here's what he (Malleus that is) said, and I really liked

What exactly does the WMF do, except provide nice well-paid jobs for their cronies?

Well said, Malleus! Could not agree more.

[radek]

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.

In my never ending pursuit of making myself unpopular both here and on Wikipedia I'm gonna come out and say that in retrospect I think Sandstein would've actually made a good arbitrator. Yes, yes, he's like a robot version of Robespierre. But Robespierre was actually a pretty damn good and decent lawyer before he got into the whole "Public Terror" thing and I think that as long as there's no revolution going on Wikipedia Sandstein would likewise do pretty well. The robot thing too - problem with robots is that they're cold and unfeeling, which he is - but at least they're consistent, fair and competent (at least in movies and comic books). There's too much feel-good Facebooky pokey crap on Wikipedia as it is already and I think sometimes we could use being adminstrated by some machines, given that we gonna get administrated one way or another. And yes, if you pay attention to AE then it's painfully obvious how incompetent and wacky the current bunch is compared to when Sandstein ruled that roost. The guy at least bothered to read stuff that was said, clicked on the diffs provided, tracked them down if they were full of shit and did some homework. And as far as I could tell he had no "ideology" or "politics" or "affiliations" one way or another, aside from the "this be the rules and you broke the rules" thing. Sometimes it actually felt like a breeze of fresh air, given how Wikipedia usually functions.

I think towards the end there he got burnt out and started getting a little ... variant ... in his decisions, and at the same time it was pretty obvious he was very much addicted to "blocking" (or "sanctioning"). First thing he did after he got mad and quit AE in protest (and come on, anyone who's around Wikipedia long enough eventually gets to the point where they want to "strike" but then they realize they can't so they do some kind of thing which is equivalent to grumbling) was go to AN/I and get involved in those disputes and block some people. Then he sort of realized that this was like methadone to his usual heroin and kicked it cold turkey. Good for him.

I think he's actually had a long enough break that he should come back to the blockin', constabulatin' and administratin'. AE could use him. Hell, if he runs again I'm gonna vote for him, and sincerely too, not for the reasons why Pete voted for FT2. I get annoyed with strict rules, but I'm okay with them as long as they're enforced consistently and fairly and that's what you got with the guy.

Also, I like the inactive admins. It's the active ones that cause most of the trouble. Speaking of which, Iridescent is catching all this attention, but hasn't CLH been gone for like the past 40 years or something? If "inactivity" was all that there was too this, why hasn't he been bumped off? Nah nah nah, something else is the reason.

Edit: and oh yeah, given his admin profile, he actually created some decent content. Nothing FA or GA worthy, but some well written, competent, succinct, well sourced and to-the-point articles. Sort of what you'd expect from him.

This post has been edited by radek:

[radek]

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.

Also. Mmmm... you got a permission to post these?

And to play it up some more, this quote:

''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''

sort of suggests that if Sandstein got the checkuser powers, he'd realize how many "officially sanctioned" sockpuppets there are (and the like), how much corruption there is, and he'd probably go apeshit on it (which he would, given he's Sandstein). That's why usually people don't want the "incorruptible" kinds actually in office. They're useful, but given that they're sincere you got to keep them away from the curtain. I dunno, it would've been fun. He probably would've fucked shit up more than someone like Giano could have ever hoped to.

This post has been edited by radek:

[EricBarbour]

"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."

That's one good reason why 5000 new user accounts are created on WP, every day.
Admins and wargamers use them for dirty little things like this.

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?

Of course. Because it's quite likely they are doing it, too.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Malleus]

"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."

That's one good reason why 5000 new user accounts are created on WP, every day.
Admins and wargamers use them for dirty little things like this.

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?

Of course. Because it's quite likely they are doing it, too.

The truth about Iridescent hasn't, and wont be told.

[GlassBeadGame]

"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."

That's one good reason why 5000 new user accounts are created on WP, every day.
Admins and wargamers use them for dirty little things like this.

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?

Of course. Because it's quite likely they are doing it, too.

The truth about Iridescent hasn't, and wont be told.

Windbag.

[Malleus]

"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."

That's one good reason why 5000 new user accounts are created on WP, every day.
Admins and wargamers use them for dirty little things like this.

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?

Of course. Because it's quite likely they are doing it, too.

The truth about Iridescent hasn't, and wont be told.

Windbag.

Dickhead.

[A Horse With No Name]

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

If you should ever accomplish something of value with your life, please let us know. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

I will be glad to forward the original PM exchange I had with Iri to any interested parties, to confirm that he acknowledged creating sockpuppets for sole purpose of harassing another person.

And three cheers and 72 virgins for Malley for making this statement on the WP Arbcom talk page:

I really don't understand why it is that ArbCom finds it acceptable to treat the rest of us like idiots. The timing of Iridescent's disappearance stinks. 22:18, 14 November 2011

Perhaps the timing might have been more credible if Arbcom dropped him after Coren realized the source of the Arbcom list "leak"? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

[BelovedFox]

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.

Assuming the above is genuine, it's incorrect at least in part.

I don't remember anyone asking me to run; there might have been a stray comment on-wiki, but there was definitely no personal appeal. I ended up throwing my name in because there weren't many choices available, period, until well after I submitted my candidacy; concerns about Sandstein didn't factor in. It was about offering choice instead of playing election gamesters.

[Peter Damian]

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.

Assuming the above is genuine, it's incorrect at least in part .

I don't remember anyone asking me to run; there might have been a stray comment on-wiki, but there was definitely no personal appeal. I ended up throwing my name in because there weren't many choices available, period, until well after I submitted my candidacy; concerns about Sandstein didn't factor in. It was about offering choice instead of playing election gamesters.

If the Iri account here is genuine, i.e. corresponds to the Iri account on Wikipedia, then it is genuine. I can't see why it wouldn't, not least because the Wikipedia Iridescent would have objected strongly otherwise. That's assuming the Wikipedia Iridescent knew about Wikipedia Review. Did they?

I don't remember anyone asking me to run; there might have been a stray comment on-wiki, but there was definitely no personal appeal. I ended up throwing my name in because there weren't many choices available, period, until well after I submitted my candidacy; concerns about Sandstein didn't factor in. It was about offering choice instead of playing election gamesters.

And I'm sorry David, but given the propensity of other Arbcom members, old and new, to lie about practically anything for the sake of appearances, why should we believe you? Sorry again, but it has to be said. The reputation of this committee could not sink any lower than it is at the present moment.

Adding the word 'definitely' to any statement does not recover you from the suspicion of a lie. Quite the reverse, actually.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[BelovedFox]

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.

Assuming the above is genuine, it's incorrect at least in part .

I don't remember anyone asking me to run; there might have been a stray comment on-wiki, but there was definitely no personal appeal. I ended up throwing my name in because there weren't many choices available, period, until well after I submitted my candidacy; concerns about Sandstein didn't factor in. It was about offering choice instead of playing election gamesters.

If the Iri account here is genuine, i.e. corresponds to the Iri account on Wikipedia, then it is genuine. I can't see why it wouldn't, not least because the Wikipedia Iridescent would have objected strongly otherwise. That's assuming the Wikipedia Iridescent knew about Wikipedia Review. Did they?

I don't remember anyone asking me to run; there might have been a stray comment on-wiki, but there was definitely no personal appeal. I ended up throwing my name in because there weren't many choices available, period, until well after I submitted my candidacy; concerns about Sandstein didn't factor in. It was about offering choice instead of playing election gamesters.

And I'm sorry David, but given the propensity of other Arbcom members, old and new, to lie about practically anything for the sake of appearances, why should we believe you? Sorry again, but it has to be said. The reputation of this committee could not sink any lower than it is at the present moment.

Adding the word 'definitely' to any statement does not recover you from the suspicion of a lie. Quite the reverse, actually.

I understand the lack of trust, given I am just a floating name in cyberspace, but I don't see what I could possibly gain from lying that there were many people trying to get me to run. I don't see any indications that was so; I even went back and checked my emails, and the only place I remember discussing the election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SandyGeorgia/arch76#Your_ArbCom_guide).

I guess my query is, what's my motivation in all this? What benefit do I get from any denial?

The reason I find the Eva quote above odd and question its veracity is because as far as I know Iri and I never really interacted in any tangible way before we both got elected. Even afterwards, I don't think we've ever had a direct conversation. Me getting mentioned in general is a little weird.)

[Ottava]

I understand the lack of trust, given I am just a floating name in cyberspace, but I don't see what I could possibly gain from lying that there were many people trying to get me to run. I don't see any indications that was so; I even went back and checked my emails, and the only place I remember discussing the election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SandyGeorgia/arch76#Your_ArbCom_guide).

I guess my query is, what's my motivation in all this? What benefit do I get from any denial?

The reason I find the Eva quote above odd and question its veracity is because as far as I know Iri and I never really interacted in any tangible way before we both got elected. Even afterwards, I don't think we've ever had a direct conversation. Me getting mentioned in general is a little weird.)

Well, when I said I thought I did, I did so because I remember saying something to you either via PM here (which I can't see anymore) or over IRC. It would have been -well- before the election and around the time you revealed to me who you are here (before you publicly declared yourself as David).

I contacted probably 12 people who work at FAC about it, so it wasn't anything big. It probably would have been around that July or so. Nothing too big and I don't really care either way. Just an FYI.

David, you bring a voice that is important - a focus on how Wikipedia operates as an encyclopedia and a producer of content. Most of the Arbitrators had very little content background and had no idea how people should be regarding an encyclopedia. Instead, they just dealt with interactions without the greater picture.

[thekohser]

Me getting mentioned in general is a little weird.

Then maybe you're the mailing list leaker!

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)

[BelovedFox]

I understand the lack of trust, given I am just a floating name in cyberspace, but I don't see what I could possibly gain from lying that there were many people trying to get me to run. I don't see any indications that was so; I even went back and checked my emails, and the only place I remember discussing the election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SandyGeorgia/arch76#Your_ArbCom_guide).

I guess my query is, what's my motivation in all this? What benefit do I get from any denial?

The reason I find the Eva quote above odd and question its veracity is because as far as I know Iri and I never really interacted in any tangible way before we both got elected. Even afterwards, I don't think we've ever had a direct conversation. Me getting mentioned in general is a little weird.)

Well, when I said I thought I did, I did so because I remember saying something to you either via PM here (which I can't see anymore) or over IRC. It would have been -well- before the election and around the time you revealed to me who you are here (before you publicly declared yourself as David).

I contacted probably 12 people who work at FAC about it, so it wasn't anything big. It probably would have been around that July or so. Nothing too big and I don't really care either way. Just an FYI.

Ah, that makes much more sense. Although I still don't understand what Iri has to do with it. Thanks for the clarification.

Me getting mentioned in general is a little weird.

Then maybe you're the mailing list leaker!

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)

That'd have to be a pretty amazing case of Jekyll and Hyde (but without the cool top hats they always have him wearing.)

[Peter Damian]

I understand the lack of trust, given I am just a floating name in cyberspace,

I didn't say that. I said, given that you are a member of the Arbcom, with their known propensity to economise with the truth.

but I don't see what I could possibly gain from lying that there were many people trying to get me to run.

Possibly to save appearances? The leaked emails suggested that Arbcom would go to any lengths to preserve those.

I guess my query is, what's my motivation in all this? What benefit do I get from any denial?

See above.

The reason I find the Eva quote above odd and question its veracity is because as far as I know Iri and I never really interacted in any tangible way before we both got elected. Even afterwards, I don't think we've ever had a direct conversation. Me getting mentioned in general is a little weird.)

Well, that has the ring of truth, I admit.

[Shalom]

Iridescent's wiki-obituary should mention his character assassination of "Shalom Yechiel" at RFA.
In my follow-up RFC to protest the defamation, I called Iridescent a "he" and was corrected by someone saying "she". On that, as on the substantive dispute, I was correct.

Malleus: I don't think Iridescent or any current or former member of ArbCom is "MaliceAforethought" or provided access to that individual. I do believe, as stated elsewhere, that "Wikileaker" is Sam Korn.

[Malleus]

Malleus: I don't think Iridescent or any current or former member of ArbCom is "MaliceAforethought" or provided access to that individual. I do believe, as stated elsewhere, that "Wikileaker" is Sam Korn.

I've never thought that Iridescent was the leaker, simply that I find the timing of his disappearance to be rather too much of a coincidence for me to swallow.

[A Horse With No Name]

In my follow-up RFC to protest the defamation, I called Iridescent a "he" and was corrected by someone saying "she". On that, as on the substantive dispute, I was correct.

Newyorkbrad referred to Iri as "he" - and if anyone can tell the difference between a penis and a vagina, it's Newyorkbrad! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[SB_Johnny]

In my follow-up RFC to protest the defamation, I called Iridescent a "he" and was corrected by someone saying "she". On that, as on the substantive dispute, I was correct.

Newyorkbrad referred to Iri as "he" - and if anyone can tell the difference between a penis and a vagina, it's Newyorkbrad! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Vulva, horsey. Vulva. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[mbz1]

Malleus: I don't think Iridescent or any current or former member of ArbCom is "MaliceAforethought" or provided access to that individual. I do believe, as stated elsewhere, that "Wikileaker" is Sam Korn.

I've never thought that Iridescent was the leaker, simply that I find the timing of his disappearance to be rather too much of a coincidence for me to swallow.

I agree it looks rather strange.
If Iridescent was inactive why wasn't he simply asked to resign?
A few times he gave an impression that he did not care about being a member of govcom,
and even that he was asked to run just to make sure sandstein will not get a sit.
BTW does somebody know, if Iridescent was up for the reelection this year?

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[Michaeldsuarez]

BTW does somebody know, if Iridescent was up for the reelection this year?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=460169732

Iridescent's term was meant to expire next year, but his or her old seat is currently up for grabs this year.

[A Horse With No Name]

Vulva, horsey. Vulva. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Please...we're not here to talk about Swedish automobiles! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

I agree it looks rather strange.
If Iridescent was inactive why wasn't he simply asked to resign?

The Utah delegate to Arbcom has also been inactive for several weeks (I think he is working the Romney phone banks), but he wasn't asked to resign.

[mbz1]

Vulva, horsey. Vulva. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Please...we're not here to talk about Swedish automobiles! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

I agree it looks rather strange.
If Iridescent was inactive why wasn't he simply asked to resign?

The Utah delegate to Arbcom has also been inactive for several weeks (I think he is working the Romney phone banks), but he wasn't asked to resign.

Generally speaking I see no reason whatsoever for govcom private communications. Private communications could be justified only, if a user privacy is involved. In all other situations all exchange between the members of govcom should be in an open, because the practice they have now reminds me closed tribunals of Stalin's Soviet Union.
Jimbo claims it is easy to learn everything about Soviet Union in 2 hours, using wikipedia. Well, maybe Jimbo did learn about Soviet Union because definitely wikipedia reminds me Soviet Union on its worst.
Wikipedia is a totalitarian bureaucracy as Soviet Union was.
Decedents are crashed by the system no matter how talented and bright they are in wikipedia as it used to be in Soviet Union.
Wikipedia tries to hide the problems, using lies, and half-truths as it was done in Soviet Union.


This post has been edited by mbz1:

[A Horse With No Name]

Well, maybe Jimbo did learn about Soviet Union because definitely wikipedia reminds me Soviet Union on its worst.

Oh, please...at least the Soviet Union produced some great movies and memorable symphonic works. And Mrs. Gorbachev was hot! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

In any event, Iridescent was a do-nothing arbitrator who ran (and is probably still running) a sock farm. No great loss. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

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

[mbz1]

Well, maybe Jimbo did learn about Soviet Union because definitely wikipedia reminds me Soviet Union on its worst.

Oh, please...at least the Soviet Union produced some great movies and memorable symphonic works.

It reminded me a famous Russian song:
A Russian is talking to an African, and African is criticizing Russia on a different subjects, but Russian keeps repeating :
"So what there's something bad in Russia? In a field of the ballet Russia is ahead of all the countries." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (It sounds much funnier in Russian than in my translation. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) )

And Mrs. Gorbachev was hot! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

It was better under Gorbachev, but still here's an example: I used to live 70 kilometers from Chernobyl nuclear plant, but I found out about the disaster only from listening BBC. In Soviet media the first 4 lines mention about the disaster appeared a few days after the disaster.

The same with wikipedia: I would rather learn what's going on in govcom from on wiki posts by the members of govcom, not from a leaker.

In any event, Iridescent was a do-nothing arbitrator who ran (and is probably still running) a sock farm. No great loss. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Of course. The real question is, if there is going to be a great loss, if any one of them or all of them together for that matter are to leave. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[EricBarbour]

Newyorkbrad referred to Iri as "he" - and if anyone can tell the difference between a penis and a vagina, it's Newyorkbrad! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

You are what you eat.

Of course. The real question is, if there is going to be a great loss, if any one of them or all of them together for that matter are to leave. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

That would be very desirable, but I expect they will just alienate the rest of the world, and then drive all the articles into total incoherence.


This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[radek]

CODE

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 charad

e.



Hmm. Ok. I dunno if this is "material for the book" but as someone who was not involved in the whole thing, I do get lost sometimes in exactly what happened.

And it seems like a pretty major fuck up.

So.

Can we have a write up of the basic timeline of what exactly happened. I understand that some of the arbs knew about this, which is sort of bad. I understand that this Law guy was some kind of White Supremacist who promised not to be all-white-supremacist-in his admin actions. But honestly - and this is a bit of a recurring problem - the details of where who and when someone fucked up get lost in the big swamp of Wikipedia.

Can someone write this story up? In time for the upcoming election?

[Peter Damian]

Can someone write this story up? In time for the upcoming election?

Try here http://wikipediareview.com/Directory:The_Wikiped...int_of_View/Law

[A Horse With No Name]

Can someone write this story up? In time for the upcoming election?

Try here http://wikipediareview.com/Directory:The_Wikiped...int_of_View/Law

A couple of things were missing from that account:

1. Ironholds was the one who outed Law via an IRC chat.

2. Six weeks prior to this mess blowing up, Keegan had emailed arbitrator John Vandenberg stating that Law was a sockpuppet. JVB claimed that he didn't read the email, though almost nobody believes that statement.

3. Arbcom was specifically asked by the "community" whether they could answer a simple yes-or-no question on whether they were aware that Law was a sockpuppet. Half of Arbcom refused to answer a simple yes-or-no question and Risker even tried to censor that aspect of the discussion.

Arbcom has no problems with sockpuppets, as long as the puppeteers are friends or members of the committee.

[MZMcBride]

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

If you should ever accomplish something of value with your life, please let us know. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

I'm working on creating an account that's an impersonation of a pastor and obsessively posting to a Wikipedia criticism Web site. With any luck, I'll have accomplished great things in short order.

It's a game, Horsey. You're playing a game. And in this game, you choose to be deceptive and manipulative. That's fine, I suppose. But it's not as though one can simply brush these facts aside when reading any of your comments. You're not here to spread the wiki-sunlight; you're here because you're obsessed with a game.

[A Horse With No Name]

With any luck, I'll have accomplished great things in short order.

Nah, you're doomed to failure. Not the worst thing, though - despite your numerous shortcomings, we still love you. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif)

[Ottava]

With any luck, I'll have accomplished great things in short order.

Nah, you're doomed to failure. Not the worst thing, though - despite your numerous shortcomings, we still love you. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif)

Horsey - you forgot that McBride has both sock puppets and pretends to be a female (technically, multiple females, and sometimes in the same chat). Most of his criticism of you is actually ironic and shouldn't be taken seriously.

[A Horse With No Name]

Horsey - you forgot that McBride has both sock puppets ...

Actually, I didn't forget - I didn't know, only because I don't pay very much attention to Skinnybones outside of this website. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

...and pretends to be a female (technically, multiple females, and sometimes in the same chat).

I wasn't aware that he was a cross-dresser. I guess that's what comes from hanging out with EVula and all of those theatrical types! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Most of his criticism of you is actually ironic and shouldn't be taken seriously.

I stopped taking all criticism seriously after the Atlanta Journal-Constitution panned my one and only attempt at writing a musical play. Maybe it would have been a bigger hit if we had cross-dressers in the show! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[thekohser]

...hanging out with EVula...

I thought we all decided that mons pubis was the correct term?

[mbz1]

3. Arbcom was specifically asked by the "community" whether they could answer a simple yes-or-no question on whether they were aware that Law was a sockpuppet. Half of Arbcom refused to answer a simple yes-or-no question and Risker even tried to censor that aspect of the discussion.

Not only members of govcom, but even regular administrators have difficulties in answering simple yes-or-no questions.

For example gwen gale often responds to canvassing. she blocked me while responding to canvassing.
For almost a year I kept asking wikipedia administrators including members of govcom a simple yes-or-no question: was gwen gale responding to canvassing, when she blocked me.
It was like a game. I was having fun, watching how different administrators were trying to avoid a direct response:

Here's I asked EdJohnston a direct question:

Please help me to understand why this message is not canvasing, and I will apologize for naming it this way.

In response I got a general explanation about canvassing

Admins ought to be uncanvassable. Any admin who gets an improper request on their talk page should not take the proposed action. If they do, a question may be raised as to their fitness to be an admin. So the concept of 'canvassing an admin' is rather backwards.

After that I asked one more time, if I should apologize to gwen for saying she responded to canvassing, but I got no response at all.

It took me almost a year to find an honest and unafraid administrator, who gave me a direct response: Yes, gwen gale was responding to canvassing, and she should not have been the one
to block you.

How much more fun editing wikipedia could have been, if there were more honest, decent and unafraid administrators!

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[MZMcBride]

With any luck, I'll have accomplished great things in short order.

Nah, you're doomed to failure. Not the worst thing, though - despite your numerous shortcomings, we still love you. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif)

Love you more. <3

[EricBarbour]

(IMG:http://i1216.photobucket.com/albums/dd363/AraHamako/Ponies/poast9.jpg)

[A Horse With No Name]

Love you more. <3

Is that supposed to be your heart or your testicles? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Peter Damian]

Try here http://wikipediareview.com/Directory:The_Wikiped...int_of_View/Law

A couple of things were missing from that account:

1. Ironholds was the one who outed Law via an IRC chat.

2. Six weeks prior to this mess blowing up, Keegan had emailed arbitrator John Vandenberg stating that Law was a sockpuppet. JVB claimed that he didn't read the email, though almost nobody believes that statement.

3. Arbcom was specifically asked by the "community" whether they could answer a simple yes-or-no question on whether they were aware that Law was a sockpuppet. Half of Arbcom refused to answer a simple yes-or-no question and Risker even tried to censor that aspect of the discussion.

Arbcom has no problems with sockpuppets, as long as the puppeteers are friends or members of the committee.

Thanks. Do you have any dates for the off-wiki bits. When was the IRC chat?

[edit] Just found this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=317444073 09:37, 2 October 2009 John Vandenberg.

It was brought to my attention this morning, about 9 hours ago, that a functionary had privately informed me on August 21 about the connection between Law and The undertow. The email that I received, which was sent to the audit subcommittee this morning and will be send to arbcom-l shortly, did not spell out the connection explicitly, and I can't be certain that I had even read the email until this morning. The day the original email arrived was the due date for the ERA submission for which I was responsible. My apologies for adding to the recent confusion, especially to the functionary who believed that they had elevated the matter to the committee appropriately. I dropped the ball, and didn't go back to pick it up once I had more time on my hands. However I never "knew" of the connection, nor have I ever been on friendly terms with either of these accounts. My interaction is limited to actioning an unrelated oversight request from Law, and possibly communications with The undertow on IRC prior to the desysop (I don't have logs). As a result of my position in this matter being complicated by this, I will recuse from any further involvement. If this, or any other error on my part, has resulted in a loss of confidence, I will be happy to submit to a re-election. (see also my recall pledge) John Vandenberg (chat) 09:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

And here is the poll of Arbitrators http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...n_4_days_ago.3F

Corrrect, half of them refused to answer.

Note the comment here

The work that the Committee does in private is done so because it is not appropriate for public viewing. Simple. AGK 20:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...John_Vandenberg

AGK is currently a candidate for this years elections. Obviously he has been in training for this.


This post has been edited by Peter Damian: