Iridescent, Who is he Options

[Peter Damian]

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

[thekohser]

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

[Milton Roe]

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

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

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

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

[thekohser]

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

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

Milton, you're screwing up here.

Coren said this:

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

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

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

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

That's back-pedaling.

[Milton Roe]

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

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

That's back-pedaling.

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

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

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

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