Meta:Requests for adminship/Lofty abyss (removal)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

Lofty abyss (removal)

Lofty abyss (talk • contribs • deleted user contributions • logs • block log • abuse log • CentralAuth • stalktoy) Bureaucrats: user rights management.

Not ending before 7 October 2024 23:22 (UTC)

I would like to propose to remove the sysop rights of Lofty abyss here at Meta-Wiki.

The inactivity policy here at Meta mandates an automatic removal for admins with fewer than 10 edits in six months and a proposed removal for admins with fewer than 10 logged admin actions in six months. As can be seen in the logs and past inactivity removals, Lofty abyss has been "active enough" per policy; however, their way of doing so has been bypassing the inactivity policy by returning roughly a week before activity reviews (i.e. the end of March and September) to perform the minimum required edits and actions to keep their adminship, to then return to being absent for the following six months, and repeated. As seen in the previously linked logs as well as the contributions, this has been going on here since September 2021, i.e a little over three years, but has also been continuing since many years on other wikis where they hold advanced rights. This was something that also led to a de-sysop on simplewiki (see for reference simple:Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Lofty abyss, some parts of the statement used in that discussion I will point to here for some more context), as well as to several other failed right applications [1][2][3][4][5], and in other words, this has been a long ongoing technique of doing the minimum per policy to bypass inactivity removal. To partly quote Ferien's statement in the aforementioned de-sysop vote, "I don't think anyone would particularly care if this was a one-time occurrence. However, this appears to be a pattern, doing the bare minimum just to keep the admin hat, and this has gone on for 9-10 years."

With that said, given that it has been apparent that they are only active to keep their rights here and that their gaming of the inactivity policy has now been going on for years, not just here but also on other wikis where they hold advanced rights, I see no indication of Lofty abyss planning to become an active community member in the near future. That is a risk, both security-wise and to the community, and when the inactivity policy can't do anything about that, a de-RfA can, which is why I am proposing to remove Lofty's adminship here. On a second note, I'd like to note that this removal discussion should be valid, as in previous cases. EPIC (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per nom, though with thanks for their service and with no objections to them having their adminship back should they return to activity in the future. EPIC (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to security, not sure where that comes from, unless you have some other evidence that I could be compromised I have quite a complex password, and all, and I'm not sure what that has got to do with the rest, which, I admit, isn't a good look, and I really should have done this before (I keep procrastinating, as when I last tried it a decade ago it took some time), but I was hoping to have this feed, to complement what I used to do over there (before freenode was strangely taken over, and whatnot), which would facilitate all of this (including meta rc) even more; so, really, my fault for procrastinating, but I shall soon try to have this bot on toolforge (I think the problem was that there was a server switch, from ts), combine all this, and be more consistently active, as I was some time ago (if only all these server changes didn't constantly occur)... --~Lofty abyss 23:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lofty, is it really procrastinating when your activity magically increases right before October when inactive admins have their tools removed for inactivity, not once, but several years in a row? SHB2000 (t • c) 01:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I also would be willing to support them and give them a second chance down the road if they become active and show a genuine need for the user right. For now though, the history of hat collecting worries me and I'm not really convinced by Lofty's statement above, which reads as "shifting of blame" to me instead of addressing the issue that this desysop request brings up. Ternera (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I very much blame myself for procrastinating, not shifting any of that, but the freenode to libera migration was disruptive, and... I am finally looking into toolforge, but I keep running into some gitlab error, so if anyone can help with that (or has an rc bot that can be configured on irc, not sure why cvn's are so static)... --~Lofty abyss 00:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you have been told in the enwiki discussion you linked already that wm-bot exists for that purpose? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Virtually inactive for an admin. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove unfortunately Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 03:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per above, unfortunately inactive. AramilFeraxa (Talk) 05:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove thanks for your service --TenWhile6 05:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. ToadetteEdit (talk) 06:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Syunsyunminmin 🗨️talk 08:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no choice but to support this removal request, and a key reason is that your responses are frustratingly deceptive at best. "freenode to libera migration was disruptive" - that happened years ago, and this is Meta adminship, not an IRC admin role. And even if you're working on IRC, why do you need Meta adminship for that? You've hinted that you will be "more consistently active", and you haven't been for years, have you? You can always reapply if you later need the role. I don't see this as a security issue though, that being said. Leaderboard (talk) 10:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove As per nominator. Lofty abyss has been inactive for several years already, and doing the minimum amount of actions to retain the rights is a no-go. --Stïnger 11:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Remove per nom and Leaderboard, unfortunately. I think it is better to give up the role than to do a minimum number of actions to retain the tools if one does not really require them. That said, Lofty abyss is free to reapply for the rights should they regain activity in the future. Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 16:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I completely understand being busy in real life, but continuing to do token actions solely to meet the minimum requirements for your admin role is not acceptable. After a near-unanimous RfdA on simplewiki, with the conditional oppose not being addressed at all, someone would typically use that as a point to reconsider their current approach to advanced user rights. Considering the simplewiki RfdA was almost 3 years ago (and the failed steward confirm was almost 6 years ago) and this identical behaviour is still continuing, this RfdA is not particularly surprising, and I think your wikilawyering to dodge this point, both onwiki and off, has also shown a lack of maturity for any advanced user rights to the extent that is a reason for removing the rights in itself. --Ferien (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I am confused how IRC keeps coming up in these conversations relating to a lack of activity. IRC is not required to actively contribute, even in the field of anti-vandalism and similar administrative work, but you have been inactive before then and the move happened over 3 years ago. --Ferien (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove If that's not considered gaming the inactivity policy, I'm not sure what is. --SHB2000 (t • c) 01:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per above. Wüstenspringmaus _talk 08:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove The explanation about the IRC move is not really addressing the problem. --Ameisenigel (talk) 12:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove —MdsShakil (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove due to the concerns above. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 02:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per above Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 06:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Per above. --V0lkanic (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Sorry, but I agree with Ferien above.--BRP^ever 06:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Fundamentally, I consider it acceptable to hold off on returning 1 week before the desysop, in order to not be desysop due to 6 months of inactivity, since 6 months is not really that long. However, the practice of being inactive for years is absolutely unacceptable and borders on abuse.--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 15:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Removed. First thing I want to mention is that metawiki's policy doesn't say anything about RfDA procedure. I agree that this is very bizarre, but I would like to point out that in the previous two cases(including CU access) where consensus was reached unanimously, RfDA was accepted without question. That's why I'm not going to have a bureaucrat(ic) discussion about this, but rather decide that consensus has been reached to remove. --Sotiale (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]