User_talk:Iridescent#Sysop_Flag

kinda slow on the draw, i know.

It's a shame, but she only had a couple of months to go before her longstanding pledge to give up the mop after two years kicked in anyway.

Yeah, the timing of this was intentional – it was actually meant to be three months before the 2nd anniversary, in line with my "admins should always be desysopped for at least three months of every two years" arguments, but I'd misremembered the date. As I said at the time, there's no interesting back story here, I'm afraid.

Big deal. Does anyone on Wikipedia just walk away without making a production or having a production made about them?

Not sure how I'm "making a production" here. Until this thread (not started by me), I don't think I'd even mentioned it here, and all I've done on my talkpage is reply to people who've asked about it. As I say above, there's really no story here.

indeed, I just posted here for the public record.

Yes, of course. I could list dozens of major contributors who've moved quietly on to other pursuits for whatever reasons. But those types of departures typically don't get discussed a lot on-wiki or here, which is kind of the meaning of not having a production made about them.

I tend to agree with others here. "Who cares?" is my first thought. Eva/Iridescent has some strange ideas, but their resignation would hardly make a difference to things.

"Raise your hand if you're absent today."

I really like this idea. Is there any discussion about it on Wikipedia?

I've also wanted to see whether it is feasible to be a checkuser/oversighter without the admin tools. The French Wikipedia has two checkusers who are not admins, and I've asked them about this, but they havent returned my emails. The best way to find out would be to try it out myself.

Firstly sorry about iridescent one of the best admins.

Second I cant see the slightest problem about oversight sans admin. Its an invisible backroom function. Checkuser is a little trickier because if you find a sock (or frame someone) then you need a block but you can always send your results to another checkuser to make the block. Probably a good idea anyway to avoid being judge jury and executioner.

Many oversight-l requests need to be able to view deleted pages in order to fulfill the request, however this may be fixed by giving oversighters the "browsearchive" permission for instances where they are not sysops.

The biggest problem is that many times the solution to an oversight request is to use normal deletion rather than suppression.

My use of checkuser is rarely followed by a block by me.

If she was one of the best...oy!

But then again, who can we really compare her to? This reminds me of a joke that Bill Cosby made about his wife's cooking -- when there's nothing else to eat, this is delicious.

When I was a checkuser on enwiki I only blocked based on my results if the checkuser has been requested by the WMF office (which happened more than y'all probably realize). If I found sockpuppetry or other problematic activity, I'd report it to one of the noticeboards and let some other admin deal with it.

In addition, I was a guest checkuser on the English Wiktionary for some time without also being an admin there. Admittedly this was back in 2006 and the software has changed considerably since then.

Can some mod change the subhead to something that makes me sound less like an extra from "Watership Down"?

Regarding "automatic temporary desysopping", it's certainly been mentioned on Wikipedia, but is inevitably buried in a hail of "see WP:PEREN!!!" within minutes of anyone suggesting it.

Don't oversighters already have deleterevision permission?

Per Special:ListGroupRights Oversight has:

• Block a username, hiding it from the public (hideuser)
• Delete and undelete specific revisions of pages (deleterevision)
• Hide from administrators and restore elements of individual page revisions (suppressrevision)
• Hide revisions from administrators (hiderevision)
• View a previously hidden revision (oversight)
• View private logs (suppressionlog)

it does not have:

• View deleted history entries, without their associated text (deletedhistory)
• Search deleted pages (browsearchive)
• Undelete a page (undelete)

which would be somewhat necessary to using oversight effectively.

So you'll ressume it after your break then?

Meh. I'm not going to do a storm-off-in-a-sulk walkout; if there was a good reason for me to have admin rights back, I'd at least temporarily request them back (at some point myself and Kbthompson (T-C-L-K-R-D) promised that we'd go through the slurry of Category:Unknown-importance London-related articles and clear out the obvious unsalvageable crap and irredeemable spam for instance). I actually never did very many admin actions other than routine maintenance, so I can't see many situations where I'd actually want them.

What, you aren't going to put yourself forward in another RfA? I would love to see those chickens come home to roost!

Hmmm, well, it wouldn't be original now, would it. Anyhoo, since the leaving is not under a cloud why not request return of the tools and promptly use them to devastating effect against some unwary antagonist?

Another RFA would be very stupid indeed. Then again it would show if she still has trust in the community RFA voters' minds.

If I were coming back "substantively" (i.e., not to do one particular non-contentious task) I would. (I suspect there wouldn't be as much opposition as you'd think, other than the Civility Police and possibly Shalom.) The odds of that are fairly unlikely in the current climate, though; there's not much going on that I'd actually have a use for any of the admin functions, and I can happily live without the endless stream of "why did you delete this page on my band!" complaints.

I cannot believe someone would go through the RFA process out of choice, but good for you anyway.

No, there wouldn't be as much as I think -- there would probably be more. It would be a reprise of what Alex went through times two, since your sarcasm is far more cutting than anything Alex could create and RfA people have lost their adoration for that kind of shit.

Suppose you wish to edit your edit notice? FAIL!

Depends if I happen to show up. I certainly would not support. This despite the fact that you have been a fine admin and did not abuse your tools or standing. RFA is about trust, not performance; and I lack the requisite trust. I don't expect a reply per our "water under the bridge conversation," but if you were curious, that's my word.

Sort of examples why you should not be an admin. Your priorities are all fucked up. If there is anything this project needs, it's "fine admins", as it's greatly lacking in that area. But, because you're a pissy little grudge-bearer, you'd oppose her because of a distrust based from her opposing your RFA.

And save the paragraphs detailing the oppose. I know the history.

What's not to believe? Thousands have.

And I'm sure this is a great day for Shalom. He and all the IPs he's using are throwing a grand old party.



Yep. Few can hold grudges quite like Shalom Yechiel.

No. I actually think Iridescent wouldn't have that much of a prob. Iri has a somewhat brusque personality and editing style, but she can also be hilarious if you're not on the receiving end, and what she says even if she has a go at you often makes sense to you if you get past the way it's delivered. She has plenty of wiki-friends.

So does Majorly and look what happened to him.

All too often though the wrong person is on the receiving end. While Iridescent never abused admin rights, she can often be quite unfriendly and self-righteous, which is a poor personality trait to have.

She certainly has a lot of wikifriends, and is sometimes funny, but her remarks are sometimes quite cutting. She seems to take an almost aggressive stance on things - not really very good.

One of the most irritating things is when she takes every opportunity to boast about her lackluster FAs on bridges and housing estates, and belittle other editors who haven't quite got her "brilliance".

Other than that, I really do like Iridescent!

aawww, I liked teh bridges