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

I obviously have, as the leaks demonstrate. Why do you ask?

Who indeed. I suspect it's a female of the species. At one point I thought it was the wife of Mr Cheese but I'm not so certain now.

Curiosity, of course.

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.

It's always nice to be right.

That was exactly my impression, even down to the age. But the question was, do many people get PMs from this person?

You're a modern-day Nostradamus.

Thank you. It was pretty impressive wasn't it.*


*Please note RMHED has had a sarcasm detection bypass.

Why do you ask? What would that tell you?

Do you mean PMs from this forum? If so the answer is again yes; I've had PMs from Iridescent from here.

He lives in a pineapple under the sea. Absorbent and yellow and porous is he.

This thread is beneeth contempt. Its actually sad, and a bit frightening.

That depends on what the thrust of this thread is, which I still don't understand. Is Iridescent a real person? I think so. Who is Iridescent? Surely that's nobody's business but his own.

This individual's real life identity is not much of a secret.

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.

I think there are many unexplained aspects of this series of leaks. Not least of which is that given all the juicy stuff that's subsequently been posted why did it begin with a rather uninteresting exchange of emails between Iridescent and me?

The leaker seems young and stupid, not very collected, not able to tell the value of what he had access to. So its all bland.

'Couse the leaker doesn't like you?

The daily by-product of any bureaucracy is bound to be bland -- that is the nature of bureaucracies. Try reading the Congressional Register some time. The gold isn't in big nuggets, it is dust scattered hither and yon, and it takes correlation to dig it out. Malice isn't solving a problem for us, he/she is posing one, which it is up to us to solve.

It has already been said (on Wikipedia) that this will ultimately provide a "sympathy backlash" for ArbCom, and that may be true. So far, the evidence is that they are occasionally rude, they are cavalier in making secret decisions, but in comparatively clear-cut cases, but other than revealing (yet another) Wikipedia Secret Society™, there isn't much that most of us didn't know.

That said, there is more to come, so stay tuned.

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.

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.



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.

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

Milton, you're screwing up here.

Coren said this:



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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

I seriously doubt it was Iridescent - or at least, not him willingly.

Doesn't change the fact he's a pompous twit.

It's his own fault for leaving himself logged onto a public computer

When one is asked a question, directly, and does not answer the question plainly, but with "facts" that may imply an answer but do not actually state it, the response may be called "evasive," even if not intended to be.

However, I also have a strong trust in Iridescent. I believed, by the way, that Iridescent was female, I have no idea where that came from. Doesn't matter. S/he demonstrated integrity in the past; trivia players may remember that my first block was by Iridescent, and, while s/he erred, the error was of no consequence because the real question was my relationship to the wiki, and Iridescent wisely stepped back and let that fall where it fell.

Later, Iridescent acknowledged that blocking me had caused much thought, as a possible error. I assured Iridescent that I felt no harm from it. That first block was very uncomfortable for me, but I was the cause of my own discomfort, not the blocking administrator, who was merely making a reasonable action based on appearances, easily reversible.

The 'she' thing came from him being constantly referred to as "her" and never putting anyone straight. That and the 'cutesy' picture of a couple of rabbits on his user page. Wikipedia is something of a perversion, there is no doubt about that.

And his 'Eva' Destruction WR identity as well of course. Eva being, very simply, a female name. Interestingly, MaliceAForethought follows the same pattern, and the first 'revelation' was about Iridescent too, Though Malleus clearly thinks it was all about him, he has a point in that the first post could be revealing. Although you could also argue that Iridescent and Malleus are probably the two most regularly-posting 'big name' Wikipedians on WR, and the leaker had to start somewhere.

Also the pink and yellow sig in the cute font.

You don't think the phonetic similarity between the two user ames is significant?

He could be just a gay and girly man of course, The perversity is all in the bullshit.



To some degree possibly, yes.

What "phonetic similarity" between which two user names?

Eveof and Maliceof initially Malleus, but yes, ok, you too, you too.

I wasn't volunteering to put myself under suspicion, I was just curious.