Stewards/Confirm/2017/Mentifisto

Mentifisto

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

English:

Languages: en, mt, it-2
Personal info: I'm usually 'passively' around (handling spambots mostly, and responding to requests particularly when no one is around). Besides watching the stream of unifications on IRC, I typically handle SRG, SRP, VR, and less often SRUC and SR/SUL.

বাংলা:

ভাষা: en, mt, it-2
ব্যক্তিগত তথ্যাদি: translation needed

Deutsch:

Sprachen: en, mt, it-2
Informationen zur Person: Ich bin üblicherweise "passiv" anwesend (und kümmere mich meistens um Spambots und beantworte Anfragen, insbesondere wenn niemand sonst da ist). Zusätzlich zum Beobachten des Stroms von Vereinigungen im IRC-Chat kümmere ich mich typischerweise um SRG, SRP, VR und weniger oft um SRUC und SR/SUL.

Ελληνικά:

Γλώσσες: en, mt, it-2
Προσωπικές πληροφορίες: Είμαι τριγύρο συνήθως παθητικά (αντιμετωπίζοντας κυρίως spambot και απαντώντας σε αιτήματα, ιδίως όταν δεν είναι κάποιος άλλος τριγύρω). Εκτός από το να παρακολουθώ την ροή των εννοποιήσεων στο IRC, τυπικά χειρίζομαι SRG, SRP, VR, και λιγότερο συχνά SRUC και SR/SUL.

español:

Idiomas: en, mt, it-2
Información personal: Normalmente estoy "pasivamente" alrededor (manejando spambots en su mayoría, y responder a peticiones particularmente cuando no hay nadie alrededor). Además de ver la corriente de unificaciones en IRC, por lo general manejo SRG, SRP, VR, y menos a menudo SRUC y SR/SUL.

italiano:

Lingue: en, mt, it-2
Informazioni personali: translation needed

Nederlands:

Taalvaardigheid: en, mt, it-2
Persoonlijke informatie: translation needed

русский:

Языки: en, mt, it-2
Личная информация: translation needed

Comments about Mentifisto

Keep Good. --Vogone (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Barely active, and also this was unimpressive (though to his credit, he did admit his error later). --Rs chen 7754 14:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify: this is more of a neutral leaning remove. As a violation of the global CU policy, this could have been reported to the Ombudsman Commission (and rightly so, as it could have provided unauthorized access to CU data). Why I (barely) didn't vote remove was because he admitted his error. --Rs chen 7754 01:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was indeed an error made out of haste... as the situation was superficially the other candidate had enough support, so it didn't look complicated... and only one candidate seemed to have issues, so technically the other had sufficient support to get the data since they were also identified... -- Menti fisto 02:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Vituzzu (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 14:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ks-M9 ^[disc.] 14:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep--GZWDer (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good to go! --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 15:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Active enough. —Ah3kal (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -FASTILY 19:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We all make mistakes. Miniapolis 20:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Bookvaedina (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --DCB (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- MechQuester (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- εΔ ω 22:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC) a single error does not wipe away months of excellent work as steward.
Neutral Not super active, but alright. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —DoRD talk 23:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, not active enough to keep up to date of the steward practices. I am particularly concerned by the granting of advanced rights on en.wiki which is one of your home wikis. Even though they are unlikely to be erroneous, they should be left to other stewards per the stewards policy. Additionally, the other incident linked by Rschen, where you granted CheckUser rights to a user on a project without any other checkuser, seems to confirm that you are out of touch with the role of stewards. Since you mention a list of steward request pages in the above statement, it is worth noticing that SRUC and SRSUL since 2014 redirect to the same page, and that you have performed 1 edit on SRG, 11 on SRP, none on VR, and none either on SRUC/SRSUL since your last confirmation. I'd also appreciate some greater effort in creating said confirmation statement instead of copying it from previous years, starting by updating the year. The steward toolset is a rather extensive one which should be handled with all possible care. Savh^ñ 23:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, some stewards view ArbCom directives as uncontroversial. I feel that we would need further backing to consider this a violation of steward policy, or at least a discussion. --Rs chen 7754 00:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some stewards might view them as uncontroversial (though that's new to me, and this is really a slippery slope), but I believe them to be potentially controversial as a conflict of interest could exist when performed by someone whose homewiki it concerns and additionally has also been appointed by the ArbCom to such a position himself. I would consider a clearly successful RfCU on es.wiki to be equally uncontroversial, but would equally expressly refrain from acting on it per the policy. Savh^ñ 00:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've always assumed COI would exist if the person used the tools directly, rather than simply ticking a box on a decision made elsewhere and collectively... it would be odd then if it was declined due to some personal reason, but ArbCom might as well be able to assign them themselves if they already do so sociologically on the wiki, but as suggested perhaps a discussion is needed to clarify consensus? -- Menti fisto 01:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Iazyges (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - Not active on Wikiversity since 2015! --Marshallsumter (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Legitimate concerns raised by Savh.—Ah3kal (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Jusjih (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MoiraMoira (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rzuwig^► 10:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — TBloemink _talk 13:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, activity is at reasonable level (a bit on low side but stable). I am concerned by newiki checkuser case, however, especially given that this was one of the few right changes that year — NickK (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Leon saudanha (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Concedere i diritti di check-user su una wiki dove non ve ne era neanche uno non procedendo con una seconda nomina è un errore troppo grave, non sono disposto a concedergli la mia fiducia per la riconferma del suo ruolo. --Gce (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral due to activity concerns. —Marco Aurelio 22:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ankry (talk) 09:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Krd 11:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Klaas `Z4␟` V: 14:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Matanya (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --თოგო ^(D) 21:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Avi (talk) 05:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Howan Hansi (talk) 08:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- not active in Wikiversity. Marcus Cyron (talk) 10:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral almost remove, saved by fellow stewards' support; you have been around long enough, and sat through stewards' email conversations ti know never to grant rights on a wiki where you hold advanced rights except as a last resort, and lots of waving and prodding — billinghurst sDrewth 12:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Archenzo (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --Gridditsch (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --Plagiat (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak remove Per Savh. Natuur12 (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not concerned with the technical implementation of an ArbCom mandate, as was the case with the first +CU incident. There's clearly no conflict of interest in your action there, anyone would have implemented it the same way. That said, it's soooo easy to just not take actions on your homewiki - there are so many other stewards! We shouldn't need to have these debates. I am more concerned with making only one CU on a wiki, since the CU policy is one of the core policies that we deal with. Those types of mistakes shouldn't happen, though we're all human, so I'm willing to look past that too. What I am even more concerned about is the lack of overall activity, the total absence from any internal discussion, and the apparent out-of-touchness displayed here as mentioned by Savh. SRSUL hasn't existed in a long time. If you are going to continue in this role, which it seems like the consensus is going towards, then it would be nice to see some activity and effort to not only stay up to date, but effectively enforce the core policies that we deal with. – Ajraddatz (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Elmie (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lepricavark (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Melos (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Barras talk 17:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Eraevsky (обс.) 13:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Keep --Minoo (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per non-interaction concerns. This place works best when we regularly talk to each other. Quiddity (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I am worried about the it's activity --Uğurkent^talk 18:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --masti <talk> 22:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No issues. Mifter (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I vaguely recalled such issues about Mentifisto's actions. Although these concerns are legit, there are not enough to plenty justify opposing his confirmation as a steward, given his other skills. As Ajraddatz pointed out, it's highly recommended some effort to stay up to date with our main procedures and policies, in order to avoid this from happening again. RadiX ∞ 04:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ajr summed up the situation better than I could :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 10:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]