Iridescent, Who is he Options

[Peter Damian]

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.

[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.

[A Horse With No Name]

Moreover, there's absolutely no evidence Iridescent's account was hacked. - Roger Davies 10:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Since Iridescent is a regular participant on this website, perhaps he would like to discuss this with his WR friends?

[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.

[A Horse With No Name]

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.

Well, if the e-mail account was not hacked...and there are no proxy IPs from Iran...where did the leak come from?

And as an aside: if I was a hacker, the very last thing I would do with a purloined e-mail account is go out of my way to embarrass Malleus or rake up some old Ottava stuff for the amusement of 25 people on WR.

[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?

[Kelly Martin]

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.

[Malleus]

And as an aside: if I was a hacker, the very last thing I would do with a purloined e-mail account is go out of my way to embarrass Malleus or rake up some old Ottava stuff for the amusement of 25 people on WR.

That's still one of the things I find most puzzling about this affair. And obviously if the source of this leak hasn't been discovered then of course there's no reason to believe the assurances that it's been plugged.

[Milton Roe]

And as an aside: if I was a hacker, the very last thing I would do with a purloined e-mail account is go out of my way to embarrass Malleus or rake up some old Ottava stuff for the amusement of 25 people on WR.

That's still one of the things I find most puzzling about this affair. And obviously if the source of this leak hasn't been discovered then of course there's no reason to believe the assurances that it's been plugged.

There actually ARE standard ways of narrowing down where leaks are coming from in a large organization where a large number of people must have access to the same information. But Arbcom, following the tradition of WP, is not going to look to see how the real-world deals with this stuff, because they're too full of themselves. So this is entertaining.

[The Adversary]

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.

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.

[melloden]

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.

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.

Is there no sysadmin or whatnot of WR that can see MaliceAforethought's IP address? Although that would likely go back to Tor, anyway.

[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.

[ComeGetMe]

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]

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: Thu 30th June 2011, 3:06pm

[NuclearWarfare]

I would sure like something more from Iridescent than what he has currently stated publically about the leaks.

Tex

What exactly do you want Iridescent to say that he hasn't already?

[Peter Damian]

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.

[A Horse With No Name]

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.

[Malleus]

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.

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.