Iridescent, Who is he Options

[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

[A Horse With No Name]

But yes, there are some on the committee now who were on it back then whose apologies would be in order. Fat chance.

Fat? Now now...Brad's just big-boned.

[Abd]

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.

Yeah, we should toss a named academic editor of Wikipedia, published author, in the trash, because of a list of alleged offenses compiled by an anonymous hit man called "Guesswork Orange." There was indeed a response in that thread. A devastating one.

Interesting to see Mbisanz's comment there, in 2009. He's basically believing that for editors to communicate off-wiki is Bad. Yes, Radek was correct. I was and remain a subscriber to the EEML. I suggested that they allow certain apparently adverse editors to join. They accepted this suggestion and one did. And promptly unsubscribed. Too boring.

It is hilarious that this was considered a cabal, while real cabals, with long-term and devastating effect, were operating openly, with ArbComm ignoring the evidence because, yes, it's a difficult problem to address. Easier to whack a couple of editors interested in Eastern Europe. Who cares about Eastern Europe, anyway? Isn't that where Poland is? 'Nuff said!

I've seen no abuse of the list. The most that has happened, and rarely, is that someone mentioned an AfD. Without advising how to vote. I didn't see some mass turnout as a result, and no warping of results from EEML members. Compare that with coordinating blocking of users, on IRC and by private email.

[Kelly Martin]

I wonder if the mailing group that SlimVirgin used to run for defending scientific rationalism is still around. I found out about it from CydeWeys (who was kicked off of it for the sin of revealing its existence), but I rather doubt she shut it down.

That's what people really should be upset about here: the raw hypocrisy exhibited by policies that allow certain people to communicate privately, but punishes others for the exact same thing.

The proximate reason I left Wikipedia in September 2006 was being told that I should not be friends with anyone on Wikipedia, because I was an admin and checkuser. I decided that I'd rather have friends than be involved in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I then lost most of my Wikipedia-related friends, because they remained behind in the cult and treated my departure and subsequent criticisms as a betrayal and grounds to terminate, or at least curtail, our relationships.

[Abd]

I wonder if the mailing group that SlimVirgin used to run for defending scientific rationalism is still around. I found out about it from CydeWeys (who was kicked off of it for the sin of revealing its existence), but I rather doubt she shut it down.

That's what people really should be upset about here: the raw hypocrisy exhibited by policies that allow certain people to communicate privately, but punishes others for the exact same thing.

I don't recommend getting upset about it, but it is what it is.

The proximate reason I left Wikipedia in September 2006 was being told that I should not be friends with anyone on Wikipedia, because I was an admin and checkuser. I decided that I'd rather have friends than be involved in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I then lost most of my Wikipedia-related friends, because they remained behind in the cult and treated my departure and subsequent criticisms as a betrayal and grounds to terminate, or at least curtail, our relationships.

Ah, sorry to hear that, Kelly. However, you are better off.

Pleased to meet you.

[Guesswork Orange]

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.

Yeah, we should toss a named academic editor of Wikipedia, published author, in the trash, because of a list of alleged offenses compiled by an anonymous hit man called "Guesswork Orange." There was indeed a response in that thread. A devastating one.

Interesting to see Mbisanz's comment there, in 2009. He's basically believing that for editors to communicate off-wiki is Bad. Yes, Radek was correct. I was and remain a subscriber to the EEML. I suggested that they allow certain apparently adverse editors to join. They accepted this suggestion and one did. And promptly unsubscribed. Too boring.

It is hilarious that this was considered a cabal, while real cabals, with long-term and devastating effect, were operating openly, with ArbComm ignoring the evidence because, yes, it's a difficult problem to address. Easier to whack a couple of editors interested in Eastern Europe. Who cares about Eastern Europe, anyway? Isn't that where Poland is? 'Nuff said!

I've seen no abuse of the list. The most that has happened, and rarely, is that someone mentioned an AfD. Without advising how to vote. I didn't see some mass turnout as a result, and no warping of results from EEML members. Compare that with coordinating blocking of users, on IRC and by private email.

If you're talking of the offenses listed at Wikileaks, I didn't compile them and they're of such nature that they should get anyone banned from Wikipedia immediately. I have never seen anything published by Piotrus except that ironic piece about how there was no cabal on Wikipedia because of a lack of changes to the Verifiability policy, that you agreed was crap.

Remember your surprise at the Radeksz leak. You weren't aware that they kept on coordinating as extensively as before but elsewhere. However, your acknowledgement that the EEML still exists is interesting. I guessed that also from the support of Vecrumba and Piotrus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=406012375
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=433462776
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=375063148
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=376167532

Arbcom accepted initiated the EEML case, not to ban the members but to avoid a CAMERA-like indef banning of them by normal admins. It was impossible for Arbcom not to sanction the EEML in this context. They had to give the impression that they were dealt with, exploited and exaggerated by the EEML that was always trying to highlight itself and its nations as victims. The case was called closed, almost all sanctions then got reversed in "amendments" and the members have been able to return to their agendas without hindrance. Quoting the EEML on-wiki was forbidden by Shell Kinney, who was later found meeting with Piotrus tete-a-tete on a small meet-up in Pittsburgh.

I agree that Arbcom doesn't care about cabals. They ignored this too:

Cabals can be tight, but they can also often be loose. For instance, among the Romanian editors have been

*Me (Biruitorul)
*Dc76 (Dorin)
*Dahn
*Ronline (admin)
*Bogdangiusca (admin)
*Olahus
*Dpotop
*MariusM
*Bonaparte
*Anonimu.

...

Among Hungarian editors, one can recall K. Lastochka, Alensha, Hobartimus, Istvan, Zello, KIDB, KissL, Koppany and Squash Racket. It seems they too are rather loosely organised. But they may be more so on the Slovak front - it seems Hungarians have far more confrontations with Slovaks than with Romanians. Although Squash Racket recently made the rather absurd claim that Hungarians found Transylvania empty when they settled there and "allowed" Romanians in to settle(!)

The Bulgarians have TodorBozhinov, Jingiby, Laveol and a few others. TodorBozhinov is quite prolific and also not that cabal-ish, except when it comes to Macedonia/FYROM. There, Bulgarian editors vigorously fight Macedonian ones. I've never seen a single serious Macedonian editor - theirs is a fake country with a fake history, so naturally they have an inferiority complex vis-à-vis Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece.

Speaking of Greece, the Greeks have (as they've freely admitted to me) a tightly-organised cabal (admin Yannismarou, NikoSilver, Cplakidas, Tasoskessaris, Kekrops, etc). They occasionally fight Turks (a looser cabal) but more often Macedonians. I also have a vague impression that Armenians and Azerbaijanis have cabals to fight each other, but I'm not sure. Also Georgians, led by Kober - and given the situation with Georgia, I reiterate my call to invite Kober here.

This post has been edited by Guesswork Orange: Thu 7th July 2011, 6:15pm

[Cedric]

The proximate reason I left Wikipedia in September 2006 was being told that I should not be friends with anyone on Wikipedia, because I was an admin and checkuser. I decided that I'd rather have friends than be involved in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I then lost most of my Wikipedia-related friends, because they remained behind in the cult and treated my departure and subsequent criticisms as a betrayal and grounds to terminate, or at least curtail, our relationships.

You must have been the subject of a "Suppressive Person Declare."

[Kelly Martin]

You must have been the subject of a "Suppressive Person Declare."

I asked Jimbo for a copy of my SP declare, but he refused to give it to me.

[A Horse With No Name]

You must have been the subject of a "Suppressive Person Declare."

I asked Jimbo for a copy of my SP declare, but he refused to give it to me.

You should try kicking him in the balls. That works on most men.

[radek]

This...

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).

This (note the falsehood - he's just linking to his own old claims. No surprise from Abd or nothing):

Remember your surprise

And the highly idiosyncratic (and frankly creepy and strange) nature of this:

Quoting the EEML on-wiki was forbidden by Shell Kinney, who was later found meeting with Piotrus tete-a-tete on a small meet-up in Pittsburgh.

Pretty much establishes who Mr. Guesswork is on Wikipedia.

I guess there's an off chance that it could be Deacon - the two share the same manipulative, false-civility, hypocritical style of lying (take a kernel of truth. Add a bucket load of bullshit. Stretch, twist, exaggerate and write it all up as if one was just a disinterested observer) but Deacon's a bit more abrasive, and to that extent a bit more honest. He would've called people names by now (like he did before).

Also the (deceitful) practice of linking to one's old false claims and presenting that as "evidence" for new (but really the same) false claims is pretty much a Skapperod classic.

Keep in mind, Mr. Guesswrok, that here, unlike on Wikipedia I can tell you what I really think of your "contributions".

[Abd]

Quoting the EEML on-wiki was forbidden by Shell Kinney, who was later found meeting with Piotrus tete-a-tete on a small meet-up in Pittsburgh.

Pretty much establishes who Mr. Guesswork is on Wikipedia.

Yeah. The style and everything. to describe it:

I guess there's an off chance that it could be Deacon - the two share the same manipulative, false-civility, hypocritical style of lying (take a kernel of truth. Add a bucket load of bullshit. Stretch, twist, exaggerate and write it all up as if one was just a disinterested observer) but Deacon's a bit more abrasive, and to that extent a bit more honest. He would've called people names by now (like he did before).

Also the (deceitful) practice of linking to one's old false claims and presenting that as "evidence" for new (but really the same) false claims is pretty much a Skapperod classic.

Keep in mind, Mr. Guesswrok, that here, unlike on Wikipedia I can tell you what I really think of your "contributions".

Indeed. It can even get personal, well-deserved here.

[Guesswork Orange]

The most that has happened, and rarely, is that someone mentioned an AfD.

So Mathsci was right about that AfD.
You were trying to become part of the cabal but you got blocked for this and the following attempt to breach your editing restriction.

I provided links showing Vecrumba and Piotrus supported you suspiciously, but you didn't reply contending they weren't members although that would be a good counter-argument.
More interesting still, I can't find Vecrumba saying anywhere and Piotrus stating in his "amendment" requests that they unsubscribed.
They would have emphasized their unsubscriptions if they had unsubscribed, like Radek and Biophys did. The most convincing argument in a re-evaluation is always that a person has stopped the deeds for which the person was convicted.
So Vecrumba and Piotrus are still on it.

Because you can't reveal more details in public, I thank you for this conversation.

This post has been edited by Guesswork Orange: Sat 9th July 2011, 3:28pm

[radek]

The most that has happened, and rarely, is that someone mentioned an AfD.

So Mathsci was right about that AfD.
You were trying to become part of the cabal but you got blocked for this and the following attempt to breach your editing restriction.

I provided links showing Vecrumba and Piotrus supported you suspiciously, but you didn't reply contending they weren't members although that would be a good counter-argument.
More interesting still, I can't find Vecrumba saying anywhere and Piotrus stating in his "amendment" requests that they unsubscribed.
They would have emphasized their unsubscriptions if they had unsubscribed, like Radek and Biophys did. The most convincing argument in a re-evaluation is always that a person has stopped the deeds for which the person was convicted.
So Vecrumba and Piotrus are still on it.

Because you can't reveal more details in public, I thank you for this conversation.

You really are pathetic. I actually feel sorry for you. Well, some of the time.

[Abd]

The most that has happened, and rarely, is that someone mentioned an AfD.

So Mathsci was right about that AfD.
You were trying to become part of the cabal but you got blocked for this and the following attempt to breach your editing restriction.

Eh? Trying to become part of the cabal? How?

My MYOB restriction explicitly allowed me to comment in polls. That was wikilawyered six ways till Sunday, you can see this in the complete RfClarification.. The request was filed by William M. Connelly, wondering if my MYOB ban allowed me to comment in AfDs. If not, I wonder what kind of polls ArbComm had in mind? ArbComm's response to this was to issue an interaction ban between WMC and myself, as if that was the problem. The real problem was FuturePerfect, talk a look at my block log. He started by blocking me for criticizing him when he threatened another user, on my talk page, with being blocked if he reverted FP's reversion of my comment in a ban discussion, as I recall. Completely insane interpretation of the MYOB ban, and he continued with that, with ever-tighter restrictions.

I never did start up process on FP. It's one of my regrets that I didn't.

I've seen no abuse on the EEML. If there was abuse, it stopped before I subscribed, or was off-list as some have claimed. Guesswork Orange is indeed pitiful, is clearly stuck in these Wikipedia wars, can't have a sane discussion here on Wikipedia Review. He is the kind of person that makes Wikipedia such a miserable place to work, and when people like him get admin tools, they will be much more subtle, but just as damaging.

Yes, by the way, I acknowledged that I found out about an AfD on the EEML. That does not acknowledge any wrong-doing on anyone's part. Once one finds out about an AfD, by *whatever* means, one may comment in it. Sometimes canvassing is an offense, it would depend on the nature. The EEML was never a large list, and I don't know exactly what rules would apply. I !voted in the AfD my personal opinion, with evidence, as I recall. So? I do not recall that !voting was solicited. The AfD was simply something that list members would presumably be interested in.

Meanwhile, the EEML editors had been facing clearly coordinated and very hostile editing. I'm guessing it was involving people like Guesswork Orange, but I don't know that, I don't know enough. Radek seems to know, and I trust him.

[EricBarbour]

You must have been the subject of a "Suppressive Person Declare."

I asked Jimbo for a copy of my SP declare, but he refused to give it to me.

You should try kicking him in the balls. That works on most men.

Won't work. You can't kick that which does not exist.

[Peter Damian]

Back again - for a bit, anyway.

[mbz1]

Back again - for a bit, anyway.

At last I found myself in a great company..

I'm not back; not only do I not have time, but the more I see of Wikipedia from the vantage point of a semi-detached observer, the more certain I am that the trends I was pointing out a couple of years ago—an obsession with strict compliance over common sense, the increasing domination of policy-wonks, an accelerating decline in the number of editors actually active in content work of any kind, entrenched US west coast and south-east English cultural bias, and simultaneous (and contradictory) unhealthy fixations on the concepts of "anyone can edit" to the point where respected users argue for the unblocking of some of Wikipedia's most disruptive nutjobs because "anyone can edit" and of "disruption warrants blocking" to the point where generally non-problematic users are either blocked from editing or hounded off the site owing to minor breaches of etiquette or personal grudges—have come to dominate the internal workings of Wikipedia to the point where it's becoming impossible to get anything done unless one's a member of one or another privileged clique who'll circle the wagons for you. (Ched, you might want to think long and hard about exactly why you're pushing so hard for the return of Rlevse—who in terms of "time and effort taken to clean up afterwards" is arguably the most disruptive user in Wikipedia's history, and who left such a mess that the cleanup effort is still incomplete 18 months later—but you're not arguing for the return of Ottava, Mattisse, Peter Damian, Kohs, Mbz1 and many more, all of whom were considerably more productive and certainly no more disruptive.)

I like being banned more and more!

This post has been edited by mbz1: Fri 24th February 2012, 6:10pm

[HRIP7]

Back again - for a bit, anyway.

Yeah. There was this too; a proposed Civility policy re-write.

[SB_Johnny]

Back again - for a bit, anyway.

Yeah. There was this too; a proposed Civility policy re-write.

I got confused for a sec there thinking that Iridescent was Peter Damien, but then I scrolled back and saw this...

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.

...so now I'm sure.