User talk:Iridescent

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

I almost never check this. If you need to get hold of me, contact me on en-wiki.

Watchlist Expiry project page[edit]


During the Community Whishlist survey 2019, you have voted for the Watchlist item Expiration wish.

Community Tech has created the Watchlist Expiry project page to work on this feature, and is looking for your feedback about the open questions they have.

Regards, IFried_(WMF), 15:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Community Wishlist Survey 2019 - Section Name in Diff[edit]


The Community Tech team (WMF) has officially started the project for Section Name in Diff, the #9 wish from the 2019 Community Wishlist Survey!

You previously voted for this wish, so we are now contacting you. We invite you to visit the project page, where you can read a project analysis and share your feedback.

We hope to see you on the project talk page, and thank you in advance!

-- IFried (WMF), 14:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hey dude. What is the status of this account at Is their global lock legitimate, obtained after their receipt of actual evidence they are guilty of cross-wiki abuses or even local sock-puppetry. Confirmed sock-puppetryz as opposed to mere suspicions, or imposters. Or was it simpy obtained by deception, by a local Administrator chancing his luck, who is simply mad at being shown to be a seasoned gaslighter by off-wiki critics he suspects of being Mick? Why is everyone acting so crazy at the mere raising of this question in the hallowed walls of the Wikipedia? Why are the questioners being blocked on sight. Why is their question being revdeleted? Why are huge ranges of a major UK provider being shut down hard, just to stop it being uttered? Strange stuff.

I wonder whose neck is on the line here. The Admin isn't exactly a face, a classic Ritchie pick, barely out of his Admin short trousers really, which probably explains his lack of foresight. Don't poke the bear eh? There are Arbitrators involved, the non-content hat collector types, clerks rewarded for time served, not evident clue. But I would struggle to believe they are all in on it, officially, as a group. The CheckUsers probably are, but it's hardly news that they have a rather binary view of the world.

So what gives? Just normal every day Wikipedia reflexive Protect The Hive insularity? The same old same old, the sort of quasi-permissible stuff that always comes out in the end, one way or another. The stuff that gets Giano all hot and bothered, seizing on it to build wild conspiracy theories that have barely any truth to them, but are fun to watch anyway. I dunno. I thought Wikipedia was past all this nonsense. Only the other day, Floquenbeam was saying let's be nice to our critics, even if they're wrong. Fine words, but even he has been part of this comical act of collective quarterback scrambling. The politics may be Seattle, but the ball skills definitely are not.

Wikipedia eh? If it worked, it would be dangerous.

I couldn't tell you. I remember MickMacNee as an editor, but I know nothing about the events leading to the arbcom case that banned him, or what the circumstances were that led to his being globally locked. You'd be better off asking on Wikipedia itself, where people who are aware of the background will see it. What I would say is that (contrary to popular belief) global locks are usually only done for a good reason even if the reason's not immediately obvious - that's what made the Fram case so heated, because a mechanism which is usually generally trusted was abused for political purposes - so there's likely to be a genuine legitimate reason for it, even if it's not necessarily going to be a reason with which I agree. Iridescent (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The lock request is here, and the nominal reason is immediately obvious. It has nothing to do with Mick's original ArbCom ban, it is being claimed that Mick is the sock master behind the relatively recent Brian K Horton sock farm, Brian having apparently quite upset Newslinger with his accusation that he is a gaslighter. So upset he went hunting for dirt, and was apparently given some by Wikipediocracy, which supposedly makes a behavioural case that links Brian all the way back to Mick, via an assortment of on and off-wiki fora, handles and issues spanning years.
The issue is, where is the proof? Buried deep in that SPI is Newslinger claiming he has it, and would email it to anyone who wants it. He also claims a simple Google search reveals it to be true. But where is there any indication that the Steward even saw the proof? Or that he even realised that Newslinger's basic purpose in making the request, was to attribute all those mostly confirmed socks of Brian, to Mick, with a behavioural case? I don't buy it. A far more plausible explanation, is that Newslinger took a chance, quietly buried Mick's name in there, and successfully duped the Stewards.
Chiefly as an end run around the local ArbCom, who you would think would he mightily interested in this accusation if it were really true. Especially if Mick is told of Newslinger's apparent attempt to besmirch his reputation, and wants to file an appeal. This lock and the accusation it derives from, is the only thing that might stand in the way of Mick likely being let back in on a basically time served basis.
For a variety of reasons, the very fact that the simple question "What is Mick's official status as of now, is he locally banned, or justifiably globally locked, based on actual evidence that someone other than his accuser has actually seen?" apparently causes blind panic among certain high ranking Wikipedians, rather suggests, once you dig into the weeds of Brian's actual beef with Wikipedia and Newslinger, that it has politics all over it. Internal and external.
It can't seemingly be raised on Wikipedia by anyone, maybe not even you. It's just too hot. Has too much potential to cause Wikipedia serious reputational harm, and negatively affect the career paths of too many high ranking Wikipedians. Gomer Piles (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gomer Piles, when I say "I couldn't tell you" I mean "I'm literally not qualified to offer any opinion on this" not "I don't feel like commenting". I haven't been a checkuser for close to a decade and am not on any of the functionary mailing lists or databases; I have no way to view the data on which they've based the current decision, in this or any other case. Although I was on the Arbitration Committee at the time of en:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee I was recused from the case so wouldn't have seen any private information submitted even if I could remember it nine years later. If you do think this is something that needs to be re-examined you could ask the current Arbitration Committee to have a look (en:Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee should work if you don't want to do it publicly); although they can't overrule a global lock, the meta stewards will listen to them if they say the lock was incorrect.
As a general note, I check this talkpage about once a year and sometimes less; if you need to get hold of me you're much more likely to get a response on my English Wikipedia talkpage. Iridescent (talk) 09:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SGrabarczuk (WMF)

18:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

SGrabarczuk (WMF)

16:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)