|
Help
This forum is for discussing specific Wikipedia editors, editing patterns, and general efforts by those editors to influence or direct content in ways that might not be in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Please source your claims and provide links where appropriate. For a glossary of terms frequently used when discussing Wikipedia and related projects, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary.
|
|
Iridescent, Who is he |
|
|
RMHED |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 936
Joined:
Member No.: 11,716
|
QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Sun 26th June 2011, 9:13pm) QUOTE(RMHED @ Sun 26th June 2011, 3:40pm) It's always nice to be right.You're a modern-day Nostradamus. Thank you. It was pretty impressive wasn't it.* * Please note RMHED has had a sarcasm detection bypass.
|
|
|
|
Theanima |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 222
Joined:
Member No.: 18,566
|
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 26th June 2011, 8:45pm) QUOTE(Theanima @ Sun 26th June 2011, 8:31pm) AFAIK he/she/it is an American (possibly from New York) aged approximately 35 currently living in London, possibly working for the metropolitan police. With an interest in railways, people with eating disorders, graveyards and parks amongst other things.
That was exactly my impression, even down to the age. But the question was, do many people get PMs from this person? Why do you ask? What would that tell you?
|
|
|
|
Ceoil |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 56
Joined:
Member No.: 8,131
|
QUOTE(Ceoil @ Sun 26th June 2011, 10:42pm) This thread is beneeth contempt. Its actually sad, and a bit frightening.
Iridescent is so obviouly a good, together, well judged person, I'm amazed that this was opened. I doubt that there is a score bing settled, it probably just a general random nastly, whatever.
|
|
|
|
Malleus |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined:
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716
|
QUOTE(Ceoil @ Sun 26th June 2011, 11:40pm) QUOTE(Ceoil @ Sun 26th June 2011, 10:42pm) This thread is beneeth contempt. Its actually sad, and a bit frightening.
Iridescent is so obviouly a good, together, well judged person, I'm amazed that this was opened. I doubt that there is a score bing settled, it probably just a general random nastly, whatever. I think there are many unexplained aspects of this series of leaks. Not least of which is that given all the juicy stuff that's subsequently been posted why did it begin with a rather uninteresting exchange of emails between Iridescent and me? This post has been edited by Malleus:
|
|
|
|
gomi |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 3,022
Joined:
Member No.: 565
|
QUOTE(Ceoil @ Sun 26th June 2011, 5:29pm) The leaker seems young and stupid, not very collected, not able to tell the value of what he had access to. So its all bland. The daily by-product of any bureaucracy is bound to be bland -- that is the nature of bureaucracies. Try reading the Congressional Register some time. The gold isn't in big nuggets, it is dust scattered hither and yon, and it takes correlation to dig it out. Malice isn't solving a problem for us, he/she is posing one, which it is up to us to solve. It has already been said (on Wikipedia) that this will ultimately provide a "sympathy backlash" for ArbCom, and that may be true. So far, the evidence is that they are occasionally rude, they are cavalier in making secret decisions, but in comparatively clear-cut cases, but other than revealing (yet another) Wikipedia Secret Society, there isn't much that most of us didn't know. That said, there is more to come, so stay tuned.
|
|
|
|
Peter Damian |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
QUOTE(Ceoil @ Sun 26th June 2011, 11:40pm) QUOTE(Ceoil @ Sun 26th June 2011, 10:42pm) This thread is beneeth contempt. Its actually sad, and a bit frightening.
Iridescent is so obviouly a good, together, well judged person, I'm amazed that this was opened. I doubt that there is a score bing settled, it probably just a general random nastly, whatever. A very likeable, insightful person with a delicious sense of humour, yes. But also sits on a influential committee which has governance over a very large and important website which aims to deliver the sum of human knowledge to every person on the planet.
|
|
|
|
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 27th June 2011, 10:54am) Now the ArbCom is back-pedaling on Iridescent's role (if any) in the leaks. Amazing! There are not backpeddling. Amalthea evidently didn't read beyond the line quoted, as Coren said in the next sentence that nobody thought it was Iridescent, even at the beginning. QUOTE(Coren) An investigation of the technical aspects of the leak have shown that the leak was mailed by arbitrator Iridescent's Yahoo mail account from a server located in Iran, indicating that the person responsible for the leak was in control of that mail account. Given that it seemed highly improbable that Iridescent himself would have had the wherewithal to use a proxy computer in a foreign jurisdiction yet use a mail account directly associated with him, the scenario that the leak was a wilful act from Iridescent was not credible. A proxy server in IRAN? You have to admire the panache of somebody who can route anything through a server in Iran. That's hacker/tech nose-thumbing to the max. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)
|
|
|
|
thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 27th June 2011, 3:45pm) QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 27th June 2011, 10:54am) Now the ArbCom is back-pedaling on Iridescent's role (if any) in the leaks. Amazing! There are not backpeddling. Amalthea evidently didn't read beyond the line quoted, as Coren said in the next sentence that nobody thought it was Iridescent, even at the beginning. Milton, you're screwing up here. Coren said this: QUOTE An investigation of the technical aspects of the leak have shown that the leak was mailed by arbitrator Iridescent's Yahoo mail account from a server located in Iran, indicating that the person responsible for the leak was in control of that mail account. Given that it seemed highly improbable that Iridescent himself would have had the wherewithal to use a proxy computer in a foreign jurisdiction yet use a mail account directly associated with him, the scenario that the leak was a wilful act from Iridescent was not credible.
At that time, I emailed the list and arbitrator Risker directly (who is one of the arbitrators in technical control of the mailing lists and the secure wikis) that Iridescent's mail account was compromised, and that it should be immediately removed from all private lists and wikis. This was done shortly, thus ensuring that whoever was in control of Iridescent's email account would get no further access. Agreed that "nobody thought is was ( willfully) Iridescent". But, Iridescent's Yahoo account was absolutely pointed to as "compromised". Now, Roger Davies is saying "there's absolutely no evidence Iridescent's account was hacked". That's back-pedaling.
|
|
|
|
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 28th June 2011, 7:19am) Agreed that "nobody thought is was (willfully) Iridescent". But, Iridescent's Yahoo account was absolutely pointed to as "compromised".
Now, Roger Davies is saying "there's absolutely no evidence Iridescent's account was hacked".
That's back-pedaling.
Yeah, you've got me. Davies' brief response worked to its purpose, which was to hide the screwup as much as possible without actually lying. QUOTE(Davies) So, Coren's statement "An investigation of the technical aspects of the leak have shown that the leak was mailed by arbitrator Iridescent's Yahoo mail account from a server located in Iran" turned out to be a misinterpretation or data falsification? Amalthea 17:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Correct. Roger Davies talk 17:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, was it "misinterpretation or data falsification"? Inquiring minds want to know. Like, is this just Irridescent's normal TOR usage, which happened to have come through Iran this time? Or is this some gonzo interpretation of Risker that put "Iran" in where nothing went through Iran at all?
|
|
|
|
Kelly Martin |
|
Bring back the guttersnipes!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
|
I think that we do not have sufficient evidence to conclude one way or the other about whether or not MaliceAforethought is Iridescent, or is someone else working in concert with MaliceAforethought. We know from experience that the Arbitration Committee is not competent at interpreting technical evidence: not only do most of them not understand it (not even those of them, like Coren, who putatively work in the industry), but, even more importantly, they are also very prone to confirmation bias and thus see what they want to see, not what is actually there. Furthermore, the statements that have been made by representatives of the Committee on this issue are confusing, contradictory, and incomplete. I'd say that the jury is out and must remain out on the underlying question.
|
|
|
|
The Adversary |
|
CT (Check Troll)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 801
Joined:
Member No.: 194
|
QUOTE(Gruntled @ Tue 28th June 2011, 4:16pm) QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 27th June 2011, 8:45pm) A proxy server in IRAN? You have to admire the panache of somebody who can route anything through a server in Iran. That's hacker/tech nose-thumbing to the max. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) It's not that difficult. There are to my knowledge currently two Tor nodes that appear to be in Iran. Yes, we should have known. "Someone" on WR knows all about Tor nodes. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)
|
|
|
|
melloden |
|
.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 450
Joined:
Member No.: 34,482
|
QUOTE(The Adversary @ Wed 29th June 2011, 2:12am) QUOTE(Gruntled @ Tue 28th June 2011, 4:16pm) QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 27th June 2011, 8:45pm) A proxy server in IRAN? You have to admire the panache of somebody who can route anything through a server in Iran. That's hacker/tech nose-thumbing to the max. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) It's not that difficult. There are to my knowledge currently two Tor nodes that appear to be in Iran. Yes, we should have known. "Someone" on WR knows all about Tor nodes. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) Is there no sysadmin or whatnot of WR that can see MaliceAforethought's IP address? Although that would likely go back to Tor, anyway.
|
|
|
|
Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
QUOTE(gomi @ Wed 29th June 2011, 1:26am) Let me remind everyone that Malice does not come with any special credibility. He/she/it has not been "vetted" by the Review, nor are we in a position to cast aspersions on the validity of his postings. You'll all need to make those decisions on your own. Thanks, Gomi. The general credibility of Malice's postings is effectively confirmed by ArbComm's reaction. However, without casting any aspersions on Malice, liars will often start with the truth. Initial credibility does not equal final accuracy. Nevertheless, the appearance of uncontradicted information here leads me to a general assumption that it's accurate. I've not seen, in fact, any claims of inaccuracy, though I might easily have missed some in the flood. My advice to the EEML people when their list was hacked was to immediately reveal an authoritative archive. While that may seem counterintuitive, the actual result of not doing that was that cherry-picked "evidence" was put up by arbitrators themselves (in a role which mixed up prosecutor and judge, and at least one arb seemed to have no shame about declaring an intention to make an example of the EEML people. A hanging judge. ArbComm should never have set up a mailing list to be used for routine decision-making, unless that list were public. A private list could have been used for any matter *requiring* privacy, which should have been a strict determination, and never allowed to become routine. In fact, though, they obviously care nothing for transparency and have no concept of ArbComm as a servant of the community. Much of the discussions are about looking good, avoiding negative appearance while being unconcerned about the underlying realities.
|
|
|
|
ComeGetMe |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 46
Joined:
Member No.: 7,032
|
QUOTE(gomi @ Wed 29th June 2011, 1:26am) ArbComm should never have set up a mailing list to be used for routine decision-making, unless that list were public. A private list could have been used for any matter *requiring* privacy, which should have been a strict determination, and never allowed to become routine.
In fact, though, they obviously care nothing for transparency and have no concept of ArbComm as a servant of the community. Much of the discussions are about looking good, avoiding negative appearance while being unconcerned about the underlying realities.
Keeping the peanut-throwers from the decision makers is a good thing - but only for certain sensitive decisions. It should not be used for routine decision-making. Just before the Arbcom committee elections, all archives should be made public. I'd vote for that!
|
|
|
|
Tex |
|
Neophyte
Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined:
Member No.: 15,265
|
I would sure like something more from Iridescent than what he has currently stated publically about the leaks.
Tex
This post has been edited by Tex:
|
|
|
|
Malleus |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined:
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716
|
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 30th June 2011, 11:10pm) QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 30th June 2011, 12:53pm) I am wondering if they were too trusting and gave access to someone who asked for a peep, and the inevitable happened. Malice did say at the beginning that 'stupid' was the real explanation. That would explain the silence and the embarrassment.
But I am speculating.
Iridescent left a comment on his talk page that smells of evasion. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) There are very few administrators that I trust and even fewer arbitrators, but Iridescent is one of those that I do trust. I see nothing evasive there, just a simple statement of fact. It's inevitable that some suspicion will hang over Iridescent until the source of the leak is established. Or more correctly, it's inevitable that some suspicion will hang over Iridescent for ever, as the source of the leak even if it's ever discovered, which it ought already to have been, will never be admitted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |