Iridescent voted off the island Options

[mbz1]

Malleus: I don't think Iridescent or any current or former member of ArbCom is "MaliceAforethought" or provided access to that individual. I do believe, as stated elsewhere, that "Wikileaker" is Sam Korn.

I've never thought that Iridescent was the leaker, simply that I find the timing of his disappearance to be rather too much of a coincidence for me to swallow.

I agree it looks rather strange.
If Iridescent was inactive why wasn't he simply asked to resign?
A few times he gave an impression that he did not care about being a member of govcom,
and even that he was asked to run just to make sure sandstein will not get a sit.
BTW does somebody know, if Iridescent was up for the reelection this year?

This post has been edited by mbz1: Wed 16th November 2011, 2:23pm

[Michaeldsuarez]

BTW does somebody know, if Iridescent was up for the reelection this year?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=460169732

Iridescent's term was meant to expire next year, but his or her old seat is currently up for grabs this year.

[A Horse With No Name]

Vulva, horsey. Vulva.

Please...we're not here to talk about Swedish automobiles!

I agree it looks rather strange.
If Iridescent was inactive why wasn't he simply asked to resign?

The Utah delegate to Arbcom has also been inactive for several weeks (I think he is working the Romney phone banks), but he wasn't asked to resign.

[mbz1]

Vulva, horsey. Vulva.

Please...we're not here to talk about Swedish automobiles!

I agree it looks rather strange.
If Iridescent was inactive why wasn't he simply asked to resign?

The Utah delegate to Arbcom has also been inactive for several weeks (I think he is working the Romney phone banks), but he wasn't asked to resign.

Generally speaking I see no reason whatsoever for govcom private communications. Private communications could be justified only, if a user privacy is involved. In all other situations all exchange between the members of govcom should be in an open, because the practice they have now reminds me closed tribunals of Stalin's Soviet Union.
Jimbo claims it is easy to learn everything about Soviet Union in 2 hours, using wikipedia. Well, maybe Jimbo did learn about Soviet Union because definitely wikipedia reminds me Soviet Union on its worst.
Wikipedia is a totalitarian bureaucracy as Soviet Union was.
Decedents are crashed by the system no matter how talented and bright they are in wikipedia as it used to be in Soviet Union.
Wikipedia tries to hide the problems, using lies, and half-truths as it was done in Soviet Union.


This post has been edited by mbz1: Wed 16th November 2011, 4:31pm

[A Horse With No Name]

Well, maybe Jimbo did learn about Soviet Union because definitely wikipedia reminds me Soviet Union on its worst.

Oh, please...at least the Soviet Union produced some great movies and memorable symphonic works. And Mrs. Gorbachev was hot!

In any event, Iridescent was a do-nothing arbitrator who ran (and is probably still running) a sock farm. No great loss.

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name: Wed 16th November 2011, 4:48pm

[mbz1]

Well, maybe Jimbo did learn about Soviet Union because definitely wikipedia reminds me Soviet Union on its worst.

Oh, please...at least the Soviet Union produced some great movies and memorable symphonic works.

It reminded me a famous Russian song:
A Russian is talking to an African, and African is criticizing Russia on a different subjects, but Russian keeps repeating :
"So what there's something bad in Russia? In a field of the ballet Russia is ahead of all the countries." (It sounds much funnier in Russian than in my translation. )

And Mrs. Gorbachev was hot!

It was better under Gorbachev, but still here's an example: I used to live 70 kilometers from Chernobyl nuclear plant, but I found out about the disaster only from listening BBC. In Soviet media the first 4 lines mention about the disaster appeared a few days after the disaster.

The same with wikipedia: I would rather learn what's going on in govcom from on wiki posts by the members of govcom, not from a leaker.

In any event, Iridescent was a do-nothing arbitrator who ran (and is probably still running) a sock farm. No great loss.

Of course. The real question is, if there is going to be a great loss, if any one of them or all of them together for that matter are to leave.

This post has been edited by mbz1: Wed 16th November 2011, 5:51pm

[EricBarbour]

Newyorkbrad referred to Iri as "he" - and if anyone can tell the difference between a penis and a vagina, it's Newyorkbrad!

You are what you eat.

Of course. The real question is, if there is going to be a great loss, if any one of them or all of them together for that matter are to leave.

That would be very desirable, but I expect they will just alienate the rest of the world, and then drive all the articles into total incoherence.


This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Wed 16th November 2011, 11:16pm

[radek]

CODE

Arbcom is sympathetic to socking when their friends are the ones doing it - most notably with the Law/Undertow affair, when it was shown that at least two arbitrators were aware that a sockpuppeteer was elevated to adminship and half of Arbcom blatantly refused to answer a simple yes-or-no question regarding their awareness of the charad

e.



Hmm. Ok. I dunno if this is "material for the book" but as someone who was not involved in the whole thing, I do get lost sometimes in exactly what happened.

And it seems like a pretty major fuck up.

So.

Can we have a write up of the basic timeline of what exactly happened. I understand that some of the arbs knew about this, which is sort of bad. I understand that this Law guy was some kind of White Supremacist who promised not to be all-white-supremacist-in his admin actions. But honestly - and this is a bit of a recurring problem - the details of where who and when someone fucked up get lost in the big swamp of Wikipedia.

Can someone write this story up? In time for the upcoming election?

[Peter Damian]

Can someone write this story up? In time for the upcoming election?

Try here http://wikipediareview.com/Directory:The_Wikiped...int_of_View/Law

[A Horse With No Name]

Can someone write this story up? In time for the upcoming election?

Try here http://wikipediareview.com/Directory:The_Wikiped...int_of_View/Law

A couple of things were missing from that account:

1. Ironholds was the one who outed Law via an IRC chat.

2. Six weeks prior to this mess blowing up, Keegan had emailed arbitrator John Vandenberg stating that Law was a sockpuppet. JVB claimed that he didn't read the email, though almost nobody believes that statement.

3. Arbcom was specifically asked by the "community" whether they could answer a simple yes-or-no question on whether they were aware that Law was a sockpuppet. Half of Arbcom refused to answer a simple yes-or-no question and Risker even tried to censor that aspect of the discussion.

Arbcom has no problems with sockpuppets, as long as the puppeteers are friends or members of the committee.

[MZMcBride]

I find it amusing that you post with the notion that you have any credibility.

If you should ever accomplish something of value with your life, please let us know.

I'm working on creating an account that's an impersonation of a pastor and obsessively posting to a Wikipedia criticism Web site. With any luck, I'll have accomplished great things in short order.

It's a game, Horsey. You're playing a game. And in this game, you choose to be deceptive and manipulative. That's fine, I suppose. But it's not as though one can simply brush these facts aside when reading any of your comments. You're not here to spread the wiki-sunlight; you're here because you're obsessed with a game.

[A Horse With No Name]

With any luck, I'll have accomplished great things in short order.

Nah, you're doomed to failure. Not the worst thing, though - despite your numerous shortcomings, we still love you.

[Ottava]

With any luck, I'll have accomplished great things in short order.

Nah, you're doomed to failure. Not the worst thing, though - despite your numerous shortcomings, we still love you.

Horsey - you forgot that McBride has both sock puppets and pretends to be a female (technically, multiple females, and sometimes in the same chat). Most of his criticism of you is actually ironic and shouldn't be taken seriously.

[A Horse With No Name]

Horsey - you forgot that McBride has both sock puppets ...

Actually, I didn't forget - I didn't know, only because I don't pay very much attention to Skinnybones outside of this website.

...and pretends to be a female (technically, multiple females, and sometimes in the same chat).

I wasn't aware that he was a cross-dresser. I guess that's what comes from hanging out with EVula and all of those theatrical types!

Most of his criticism of you is actually ironic and shouldn't be taken seriously.

I stopped taking all criticism seriously after the Atlanta Journal-Constitution panned my one and only attempt at writing a musical play. Maybe it would have been a bigger hit if we had cross-dressers in the show!

[thekohser]

...hanging out with EVula...

I thought we all decided that mons pubis was the correct term?

[mbz1]

3. Arbcom was specifically asked by the "community" whether they could answer a simple yes-or-no question on whether they were aware that Law was a sockpuppet. Half of Arbcom refused to answer a simple yes-or-no question and Risker even tried to censor that aspect of the discussion.

Not only members of govcom, but even regular administrators have difficulties in answering simple yes-or-no questions.

For example gwen gale often responds to canvassing. she blocked me while responding to canvassing.
For almost a year I kept asking wikipedia administrators including members of govcom a simple yes-or-no question: was gwen gale responding to canvassing, when she blocked me.
It was like a game. I was having fun, watching how different administrators were trying to avoid a direct response:

Here's I asked EdJohnston a direct question:

Please help me to understand why this message is not canvasing, and I will apologize for naming it this way.

In response I got a general explanation about canvassing

Admins ought to be uncanvassable. Any admin who gets an improper request on their talk page should not take the proposed action. If they do, a question may be raised as to their fitness to be an admin. So the concept of 'canvassing an admin' is rather backwards.

After that I asked one more time, if I should apologize to gwen for saying she responded to canvassing, but I got no response at all.

It took me almost a year to find an honest and unafraid administrator, who gave me a direct response: Yes, gwen gale was responding to canvassing, and she should not have been the one
to block you.

How much more fun editing wikipedia could have been, if there were more honest, decent and unafraid administrators!

This post has been edited by mbz1: Thu 17th November 2011, 7:30pm

[MZMcBride]

With any luck, I'll have accomplished great things in short order.

Nah, you're doomed to failure. Not the worst thing, though - despite your numerous shortcomings, we still love you.

Love you more. <3

[EricBarbour]

[A Horse With No Name]

Love you more. <3

Is that supposed to be your heart or your testicles?

[Peter Damian]

Try here http://wikipediareview.com/Directory:The_Wikiped...int_of_View/Law

A couple of things were missing from that account:

1. Ironholds was the one who outed Law via an IRC chat.

2. Six weeks prior to this mess blowing up, Keegan had emailed arbitrator John Vandenberg stating that Law was a sockpuppet. JVB claimed that he didn't read the email, though almost nobody believes that statement.

3. Arbcom was specifically asked by the "community" whether they could answer a simple yes-or-no question on whether they were aware that Law was a sockpuppet. Half of Arbcom refused to answer a simple yes-or-no question and Risker even tried to censor that aspect of the discussion.

Arbcom has no problems with sockpuppets, as long as the puppeteers are friends or members of the committee.

Thanks. Do you have any dates for the off-wiki bits. When was the IRC chat?

[edit] Just found this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=317444073 09:37, 2 October 2009 John Vandenberg.

It was brought to my attention this morning, about 9 hours ago, that a functionary had privately informed me on August 21 about the connection between Law and The undertow. The email that I received, which was sent to the audit subcommittee this morning and will be send to arbcom-l shortly, did not spell out the connection explicitly, and I can't be certain that I had even read the email until this morning. The day the original email arrived was the due date for the ERA submission for which I was responsible. My apologies for adding to the recent confusion, especially to the functionary who believed that they had elevated the matter to the committee appropriately. I dropped the ball, and didn't go back to pick it up once I had more time on my hands. However I never "knew" of the connection, nor have I ever been on friendly terms with either of these accounts. My interaction is limited to actioning an unrelated oversight request from Law, and possibly communications with The undertow on IRC prior to the desysop (I don't have logs). As a result of my position in this matter being complicated by this, I will recuse from any further involvement. If this, or any other error on my part, has resulted in a loss of confidence, I will be happy to submit to a re-election. (see also my recall pledge) John Vandenberg (chat) 09:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

And here is the poll of Arbitrators http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...n_4_days_ago.3F

Corrrect, half of them refused to answer.

Note the comment here

The work that the Committee does in private is done so because it is not appropriate for public viewing. Simple. AGK 20:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...John_Vandenberg

AGK is currently a candidate for this years elections. Obviously he has been in training for this.


This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sat 19th November 2011, 7:57pm