Iridescent voted off the island Options

[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: Tue 15th November 2011, 1:20am

[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: Tue 15th November 2011, 1:51am

[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: Tue 15th November 2011, 2:18am

[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.

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"?

[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: Tue 15th November 2011, 2:52pm

[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!

[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!

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!

[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!

Vulva, horsey. Vulva.