Well, for a start, let's look at the official record......Still waiting for any evidence of my alleged "conflict" or "opposition research". ‑ Iridescent 09:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The case now records:
Administrator involvement
4) With few exceptions, editors are expected to not act as administrators in cases where, to a neutral observer, they could reasonably appear involved. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.
While there will always be borderline cases, best practices suggest that, whenever in doubt, an administrator should draw the situation to the attention of fellow sysops, such as by posting on an appropriate noticeboard, so that other sysops can provide help.
Passed 9 to 0 at 07:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
By his own admission, Iridescent had said this before about all the candidates in this election, before he bocked Fred.Iridescent re-blocked Fred Bauder
7) After Fred Bauder unblocked himself for the first time, Iridescent (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Fred Bauder for 24 hours at 15:34 (UTC). (block log)
Passed 11 to 0 at 07:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
So we've already established using his own attempted defence, that Iridescent is the sort of scumbag who thinks he can express that sort of sentiment, and then still be seen as a neutral partyIf I were intentionally trying to assemble a Hasten the Day slate, I'm not sure I could have come up with a better selection of names. ‑ Iridescent 00:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
If anyone wanted specific evidence to prove Iridescent's motives for posting damaging links about Fred, they need only investigate his relationship with Eric Corbett, on whose behalf he was acting (again, by his own admission, he was aiming to ensure people didn't think Eric had just made it up). Unsurprisingly, like everyone else, he did not block Eric for the post, even though it was a direct and obvious violation of his own ArbCom restrictions.
The day I believe Iridescent did not do what he did because he did not have strong feelings about whether or not Fred's candidacy should be allowed to proceed normally based on his feelings about his stance on civility and how it would impact people like Eric Corbett, is the day he actually says it. He will not say it, because it would be a lie. That is what made him involved.
And he did conduct opposition research. He went beyond what could be normally expected of people looking for evidence of how candidates conduct themselves on Wikipedia, so as to match their platform with their actions. He went looking for real world information, stuff that would not have been possible to find for a candidate who was simply anonymous but stood on exactly the same platform of restoring civility.
Does anyone care? Will anyone in Wikipedia be doing anything about this piece of shit's ongoing ability to block who he likes, now, or ever? Or course not.
This is Wikipedia. The bullies think of themselves as the victims. And they will do anything, anything, to maintain the status quo, namely to ensure that Wikipedia remains a place where bullies can thrive.
The people who should have been demanding evidence, are those who saw Iridescent make this ridiculous claim....
Even though that was said in full view of Arbitration clerks, presented as a quote no less, which is obviously fabrication, he was not asked to back it up with evidence or remove it. As clear cut a case of casting aspersions as you will ever see. He will not have even paused for thought before saying it, because the rules do not apply to him.Owing to this case, FB is presumably no longer in any doubt that his idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:CIVILITY to mean "I can say and do whatever I like and anyone who challenges me is being rude in doing so and consequently has made themselves fair game" isn't one that's shared by the community.
This is what Iridescent is all about. He precipitated this case, he got the outcome he wanted, faced no penalty for his own terrible behaviour in how he participated, and he's still whining. This is why the only sensible and reasonable reaction to seeing him whine about people who don't back up their accusations with evidence, is to spit in his face.
