Meta:Requests for adminship/Lofty abyss

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

Lofty abyss

Lofty abyss (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • CA • email)

Ending 19 July 2019 23:33 (UTC)

A decade ago I was a sysop for six years and a half or so; wasn't as focused locally at the end, so it lapsed, but I've become active again, and along with watching other venues and smaller wikis, I'd like to also directly act here, instead of tagging and pinging others in cases of active vandalism. There are regular occurrences of such, unfortunately, like yesterday, when the page blanking lasted for an hour and a half, nearly. I'd like, instead of pinging others twice, to be able to add meta again along with the other wikis I monitor in which I'm active, instead of passively templating. -- Lofty abyss 23:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support sure. You've been active since the SE debacle, we need more people on when you're on, and to be honest, I think the criticism of you in the confirms was less than fair (though, to be honest, you just made it worse by engaging and you'd probably still be a steward today if you had just ignored it...) My standard for all permissions on meta is whether or not the user is trusted on either their home project which is large or globally. As a former steward and functionary in good standing on en.wiki, I think you pass that, even if the last confirm wasn't the best. Thank you for offering. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is your interpretation of why many had concerns about your behavior at Stewards'_noticeboard/Archives/2019-03#GS/R_afterwards? Do you believe that it is appropriate behavior for an administrator? --Rs chen 7754 00:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand the connection between local sysop and GS/R? Both were lapsed due to inactivity, but I'm not currently, and I don't plan to be. -- Lofty abyss 00:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the point that Rschen is hinting at, and that I mentioned was that your response to the steward confirms wasn't great, and the aftermath was also a bit dramafilled. I also don't think the "local sysop" argument is a good one: it's a silly distinction on meta since no one really has meta as a home project and everything here is pretty connected. I'm supporting you (obviously), but I do think asking you to explain the confirms/aftermath is fair. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - In hindsight there was more drama than in about a decade (comparable to enwiki's RfA, and even then there was likely more)... which I didn't necessarily want to create or participate in, but since the situation seemed arbitrary I attempted to advocate for some consensus, comparable to most other wikis (including meta sysop), but perhaps I did so too much. I actually don't inherently like or want to participate in 'drama'... rarely in the last many years, but I thought an arbitrary construct wasn't conducive to rational conclusions, per se; in the future, though, a singular statement seems to suffice (as this hopefully does), since causing drama really isn't my intention. -- Lofty abyss 01:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Being an administrator is more than knowing how to use the tools. I can accept that a candidate might not respond very well when facing criticism of the sort they received at the steward confirmation, but the response above is lukewarm at best when it comes to understanding what happened and committing to follow a different path in the future. Quite frankly, if it is unpleasant for me (or anyone else) to give constructive criticism to an admin candidate (at least remarkably more than it should be), they should not be an admin. --Rs chen 7754 01:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although the response above isn't perfect, I feel as though Lofty's activity in the last few months since the steward elections has shown their capability to participate in crosswiki issues and anti-vandalism that is central in the work they intend to do as a metawiki administrator. It's evident that, in the last few months, they have spent a lot of time engaging with the global community on various projects, and I feel they are sufficiently knowledgeable to volunteer as a metawiki administrator and trustworthy enough to both handle the tools and ask for help or advice where they may need it. Thank you for volunteering, Vermont (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think, he is capable of it and as per Vermont. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 04:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - your responses on your steward confirmation were honestly ridiculous, but you've been consistently active since then and I don't doubt your ability to use the sysop buttons properly. – Ajraddatz (talk) 05:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While I'm not impressed with the bludgeoning and badgering of opposes, I see that they are active enough on meta. That spambot argument actually will be good for meta as we tend to have a lot of spambot issues. I will say that I support this but with a caveat, continue to be active like now or else if you fall into another inactivity removal, I think there'll not be another chance getting the mop back unless theres valid reason. With that, I wish you all the best in mopping here. Best Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 05:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support largely per Vermont and Cohaf. The voters above summed up my thoughts pretty well. Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 06:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The behavior during and after steward confirmation was indeed beyond the pale, but I have seen improvement since then both in terms of behavior and activity. He (rightly, I believe) did not pass confirmation, but he's quite qualified to be an admin here. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Tony, Vermont and Cohaf. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 07:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clear need for the permissions. Former steward who can clearly do the job. Some in the community were unimpressed by circumstances around both Stewards/Confirm/2019#Mentifisto and (per Rschen7754) discussion of the later GS/GR requests. However, I think both Lofty_abyss and some stewards were showing too much passion. Respect towards the other users went out the window a little. And that is hard when one side is a single user. We have a chance now to set aside those errors and grant a valid request for permissions --AGK ■ 10:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find Common activity unimpressive for an admin so sadly opposing. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Novak Watchmen (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Lofty has done some good work since the confirmations - their activity and conduct has been fairly reasonable so no doubt they'll do fine with the tools again. Hiàn (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support meets the criteria of administrator and has been trusted by this community with tools. Has been managing many recent changes edits and suitably nominating deletion requests among translations. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ajraddatz.--BRP^ever 01:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Herby. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Hiàn and Billinghurst. --Defender (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support as above. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This candidate is demonstrably capable of sysop duties and is starting to pick up what they've left in the past years. I see what happened around the steward confirmation but the user has moved on and shown effort to improve. While this user may not be very active in some projects where they hold advanced rights, the user's activity here and overall cross-wiki activity should be used to evaluate this application. -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 02:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16 supports & 3 opposes -> 84% of approval. Done. Matiia (talk) 06:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above request page is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Comments about this page should be made in Meta:Babel or Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat.