Iridescent, Who is he Options

[Peter Damian]

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

[gomi]

Malice contributes to WR through an open proxy that does not appear to be a Tor proxy. It geolocates to Beijing, for what it's worth. We do not prohibit contribution in this manner, and don't -- by and large -- scrutinize our members the way Wikipedia does.

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.

[Abd]

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.

[radek]

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.

But, as I think you know, there really was no "authoritative archive" on the EEML. It got deleted way long before the case. Sort of too bad, actually.

I do like how in the EEML case the 2009 ArbCommittee was super quick to assume that the "leak" was an "inside job" by a "whistle blower" - which (in their opinion) gave them the right to read through other people's private emails - but in the present instance 2011 ArbCommittee was super quick to assume that the "leak" was done by an outside "hacker" - which makes it immoral for anyone to read THEIR private emails. Assumptions of (un)ethical convenience. But like I said, to a significant extent, these were different individuals then and now.

[Abd]

But, as I think you know, there really was no "authoritative archive" on the EEML. It got deleted way long before the case. Sort of too bad, actually.

Well, I grabbed a copy before it was deleted. Wasn't this on wikileaks? I forget.

I do like how in the EEML case the 2009 ArbCommittee was super quick to assume that the "leak" was an "inside job" by a "whistle blower" - which (in their opinion) gave them the right to read through other people's private emails - but in the present instance 2011 ArbCommittee was super quick to assume that the "leak" was done by an outside "hacker" - which makes it immoral for anyone to read THEIR private emails. Assumptions of (un)ethical convenience. But like I said, to a significant extent, these were different individuals then and now.

It is possible that ArbComm could have figured out who the leaker was with EEML, but they didn't care, really. It was obvious that the goal of the admin posting selected excerpts from the list had an agenda, exemplary punishment.

They are terrified by the prospect of off-wiki coordination, because Wikipedia is largely defenseless against this, due to the adhocracy. Off-wiki coordination is only allowed for the cabal. You can see this hysteria in, for example, how Esperanza was handled. The real sin of Esperanza? An off-wiki governance mechanism.

What was never shown with EEML was actual harm. There were some technical violations, and some possibilities of harm. One member had posted his password, so that others could sock with it while he was away, allegedly. There is no sign that anyone took him up on it, and I think he was privately reprimanded, but the offer was used to imply that the whole list was guilty of something.

Piotrus was desysopped for an appearance of responding to canvassing, but ... in fact, Piotrus simply semiprotected an article that was under seige by a set of IPs from Russia, and that action was quickly moot, as another admin independently full-protected it when new registered socks showed up to continue the assault.

Piotrus had become aware of a situation due to off-wiki communication, and acted very moderately and appropriately, given the circumstances. The problem was *secret* off-wiki cooperation and community.

Piotrus was about as straight-arrow as any admin I've come to know. He is a sociologist or political scientist, and had written enthusiastic articles, published under peer review, about Wikipedia.

I was curious about what they'd been doing, so I asked to join the list. I was readily admitted, and am still a subscriber. What happened to Piotrus, especially, was sad to see.

Wikipedia is a praying mantis that eats her lovers.

Other admins who had blatantly used their tools to push their own POV, like JzG, were "admonished" without even so much as a "Sorry" from them.

[radek]

Well, I grabbed a copy before it was deleted. Wasn't this on wikileaks? I forget.

You grabbed a copy of the leaked archive, not the "official" archive, because there wasn't one. It got deleted in April 2009, five or so months before the case got started (and before I, and many others, joined)

They are terrified by the prospect of off-wiki coordination, because Wikipedia is largely defenseless against this, due to the adhocracy. Off-wiki coordination is only allowed for the cabal. You can see this hysteria in, for example, how Esperanza was handled. The real sin of Esperanza? An off-wiki governance mechanism.

I'm not sure they were "terrified" per se, since EEML in no way threatened them or their existence. But yes, they did strongly assert their monopoly authority to be the only ones who get to "discuss things in private" and yes, that was the cardinal sin of the mailing list in essence.

What was never shown with EEML was actual harm. There were some technical violations, and some possibilities of harm. One member had posted his password, so that others could sock with it while he was away, allegedly. There is no sign that anyone took him up on it, and I think he was privately reprimanded, but the offer was used to imply that the whole list was guilty of something.

What there was was a lot of hysteria generated by the case with every insane crazy nutzoid - the kind that ArbCom itself has to deal with on regular basis, apparently - coming out of the woodwork to claim that "the EEML made me do it" and trying to finangle an excuse out of it. At the time Diguwren said something like "it's like the Pandora's box got opened up". Which was about right. Unfortunately, at least some of the 2009 ArbComs, like Coren, totally bought into the hysteria and hyperbole.

At the same time, I'm totally willing to admit that some of the people on the list, myself included, on occasion stepped over the line. Hell, you get a bunch of people who do actually care about Wikipedia - in the sense that they still want to make something decent out of it - who edit in a totally fucked up area where insane POV pushing by extremists of various stripes is the order of the day, and additionally where you have to deal with vicious sociopaths who regularly use outing and death threats to try and intimidate folks off the website... and then it's pretty much guaranteed that regular editors will get frustrated and fed up at one point and will eventually start thinking that well, the end justifies the means, so let's start a mailing list to at least let off some steam. So you get some canvassing on AfDs and a lot of honest discussion about how messed up particular users are. It's gonna step over the line sooner or later. But that's a (actually ultimately pretty mild) response to a fundamentally dysfunctional situation which Wikipedia itself had produced.

Piotrus was desysopped for an appearance of responding to canvassing, but ... in fact, Piotrus simply semiprotected an article that was under seige by a set of IPs from Russia, and that action was quickly moot, as another admin independently full-protected it when new registered socks showed up to continue the assault

Piotrus had become aware of a situation due to off-wiki communication, and acted very moderately and appropriately, given the circumstances. The problem was *secret* off-wiki cooperation and community.

Eh. Not only that but Piotrus protected that article to the anti-EEML version - that is the "other" person's version. As an aside, IIRC the anti-EEML IPs and editors who were fucking around on this particular article ("HistoricWarrior" and "Voyevoda" + lots of anon socks) got subsequently sanctioned/banned by Future Perfect - who in no way can be accused of being pro-EEML (in fact he's a bit of a shit) completely independently of any actions by people from the mailing list. Same was true for a good number of the "anti-EEML" crowd - there was no need for EEML to conspire against them in order for them to act like assholes and get themselves banned. It just took the ArbCom case for anyone to actually pay attention.

At some point in the EEML case I tried to bring up the issue of how private correspondence should be dealt with in such cases, in fact I proposed a private hearing along the lines that Roger Davies recently actually put into practice. Of course they didn't give a shit back then, because it wasn't THEIR OWN private info on the line - it's just to bad that it had to happen to the ArbCom itself in order for them to understand the serious nature of this kind of thing. At the time the lynch mob was out and they were all to happy to violate other people's privacy. I'd like to say that these recent leaks are just karma coming back to bite them on their ass - unfortunately, as I've already said, the 2011 ArbComs are mostly a different lot than the 2009 ArbComs. So it is karma coming back alright, but karma being as confused and inept as anything else in this world, it misses its target "by only that much".

(yes, good people, Karma exists but it's often hangover from having had too many drinks with Comeuppance and Charis the night before, so it often comes back at the wrong person)

[A Horse With No Name]

Well, I grabbed a copy before it was deleted. Wasn't this on wikile
Eh. Not only that but Piotrus protected that article to the anti-EEML version - that is the "other" person's version.

Piotrus is one of the very few people on Wikipedia that I respect. He has been treated shamefully and is owed an apology by Arbcom.

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name: Thu 7th July 2011, 1:01am

[EricBarbour]

Piotrus is one of the very few people on Wikipedia that I respect. He has been treated shamefully and is owed an apology by Arbcom.

Don't complain about it---write about it.....

[Guesswork Orange]

Piotrus is one of the very few people on Wikipedia that I respect. He has been treated shamefully and is owed an apology by Arbcom.

Don't complain about it---write about it.....

I have written a summary of his usage of the admin status and tools (the supposed "counter-arguments" are a post below but I saw none of them justified). You'll learn still more about Piotrus's offenses when you read the "Wikipediametric/Cabal tactics" page of encyclopediadramatica.ch that was copied from Wikileaks. You'll be surprised.

This post has been edited by Guesswork Orange: Thu 7th July 2011, 12:50pm