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.

[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.

[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:

[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.)

[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.

[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)

[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: