Stewards/Confirm/2019/Mentifisto

Mentifisto

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

English:

• Languages:
• Personal info: Mentifisto's original statement was: "Deal mostly with spambots, check RC for updates, but can't believe another year slipped by..."

  Rewritten statement: for those with concerns about activity, I admit I wasn't very much available, this was mainly because I interacted with the sites through the web. I had problems retrieving some former IRC client configurations (no backups, my bad) due to hard drive failures, and IRC is undeniably more efficient for this role.

  I have now, finally, overcome procrastination (it's difficult when scripts are about a decade old and suddenly they disappear in a digital abyss) and restarted these config files, so I'm available on IRC again, which clearly is very much more efficient when it comes to activity (exponentially? All those bots are clearly helpful). I will remain this active regardless of the outcome. -- Mentifisto 21:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

italiano:

• Lingue:
• Informazioni personali: translation needed

español:

• Idiomas:
• Información personal: La declaración original de Mentifisto fue: "Trato principalmente con spambots, reviso cambios recientes para actualizaciones, pero no puedo creer que otro año se nos haya pasado..."

  Declaración reescrita: Para aquellos que tienen inquietudes sobre la actividad, admito que no estaba muy disponible, esto se debió principalmente a que interactué con los sitios a través de la web. Tuve problemas para recuperar algunas configuraciones anteriores de clientes IRC (sin copias de seguridad, mi error) debido a fallas en el disco duro, e IRC es sin duda más eficiente para este rol.

  Finalmente, he superado la postergación (es difícil cuando los scripts tienen aproximadamente una década y de repente desaparecen en un abismo digital) y reinicié estos archivos de configuración, así que estoy disponible de nuevo en IRC, lo que claramente es mucho más eficiente cuando se trata de actividad (¿exponencialmente? Todos esos bots son claramente útiles). Permaneceré activo sin importar el resultado. -- Mentifisto 21:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

русский:

• Языки:
• Личная информация: translation needed

Deutsch:

• Sprachen:
• Informationen zur Person: translation needed

Nederlands:

• Taalvaardigheid:
• Persoonlijke informatie: translation needed

বাংলা:

• ভাষা:
• ব্যক্তিগত তথ্যাদি: translation needed

Comments about Mentifisto

• Neutral I was thinking this user was going to improve his activity, but this user's level of activity is still the same. I'm concerned about that. Also, per Vermont below. --Stïnger （会話） 14:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC).

  May I ask how much is ideal? It's kind of like measuring a string and I'm never sure whether it's sufficient. Do you perhaps think a discussion could be useful wherein a sort of average ideal is established? -- Mentifisto 14:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not opposing you. I just thought you were going to have more activity, but okay. It is only my comment. --Stïnger （会話） 14:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC).

FYI, I never say "yes" or "no" on your question about a discussion of this. I was only giving my opinion about your trajectory as a Steward. --Stïnger （会話） 17:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC).

For me, this is the wrong question to ask. There is much more work for stewards to do than there is time to accomplish it - besides the usual steward pages, AAR, global bot maintenance, SRM, OTRS, a lot of other cleanup projects (see some of my old pages on stewardwiki for instance), maybe even some auditing of CU/OS logs, maybe even trying to fix hrwiki. If you asked on stewards-l I'm sure that the current stewards would give you a list of things that could be done. It's about being a team player and being a good contributor. No, I don't expect stewards to devote every waking moment to Wikimedia (and think that doing so is rather unhealthy), but when one does just above the minimum to be confirmed, it looks bad (think about the person at work who does just enough to get by without being fired). --Rschen7754 15:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't some sort of average adequate amount still be sensible though, if only because everyone has different expectations? Don't minimums work on other wikis, and if they're inadequate are usually increased? If it's always an 'x' beyond minimum then no one can ever possibly know about it, and invariably changes (and averages do change, but that is usually done in collective community discussions). -- Mentifisto 16:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

For me, the question is what you are contributing and what you want to do with the steward tools. Once you have the answers to those questions, the activity comes naturally. You're putting the cart before the horse. If you can't come up with a better answer than "So I can do just above the expectation just so that I can keep my steward tools for another year" then maybe you should step aside. To put it another way: even though I was a steward for only one year, I feel like I made a bigger impact than some stewards who served for multiple years. I'm not sure how I should feel about that. (And in the end, I didn't feel like I could really give the role what it deserved and give other things in my life what they deserved, so I stepped down). --Rschen7754 19:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Remove per Rschen7754 below. Also, preforming many Steward actions after several concerns at this confirmation is not something that I'm going to support here. Sorry. --Stïnger （会話） 12:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC).

Sorry, but what exactly is the tight-rope I need to walk on, metaphorically? I was trying to genuinely be more active, since that is the main concern... as mentioned below I happened to discover this efficient tool that happened to pass me by... I blame myself for that, sure... but how else can I rectify the main issue here? If concerns were about abusive usage, then I concede it would be inappropriate for me to continue on... but, is it? I thought I was merely showing that I can be active, since that is the crucial thing, isn't it? I am frustrated, myself, for somehow missing a crucial toolkit, but am I not now showing that I can utilize it? For the long-term too, although that is something that time can only provide. -- Mentifisto 20:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem here is your activity in general in your years as a steward and the understand of the Steward role, not your recent massive activity. And what about other works who stewards preforms? Like AAR, SRCU, SRUC or SRM, you have not done almost anything like that at the last years. I don't think it's a good idea to use only the multilock every day to lock spambots to retain your steward rights. The people here have told you the concerns. --Stïnger （会話） 21:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC).

Why can't someone have a niche? I do at times deal with LTAs, and I did once change usernames, but it's not something I derive satisfaction from, and surely in a volunteer project, especially a digital one, anyone should have the capability to do whatever interests them and in the end all roles are filled even if people do one each? Is it better to be a 'Jack of all trades and master of none'? -- Mentifisto 08:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep though activity is (still) on the low side. --Rschen7754 14:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The direction that some of the replies have been going concerns me. Neutral --Rschen7754 19:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Remove The answers are getting stranger and stranger and I am not sure that Mentifisto has a clear understanding of the role of a steward even after all this time, or is a steward for the right reasons. I do not think that activity would continue at a sufficient level, given what happened in past years (oddly timed bursts of activity just to meet minimums). I'll just put this out there: if you asked similar questions ("what is the minimum I can do?") of your spouse, you wouldn't stay married very long, and if you asked similar questions of your boss, you wouldn't stay employed very long. Wikimedia steward is a volunteer role, yes, but if you can't do it anymore or don't want to do it anymore then you step down with minimal consequences. --Rschen7754 02:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

      May I ask what is strange? Is part of the role not dealing with spambots? In past years I mentioned I did not know of multilock, which I regret, but my recent 'bursts' are there mainly because of my usage (sort of testing) of this efficient tool. And no, marriage is qualitatively different from this role, which involves much more maintenance, but I would have thought a conventional job has similarities (and frequently states expectations in adverts). It's not that I couldn't do this in the past, it's that I was missing what was clearly an essential part of the toolkit, and yes, I'm frustrated with myself for missing the obvious, but omniscient I'm not... -- Mentifisto 02:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

      • Locking a bunch of single-wiki spambots that are already blocked only has so much effect and is worth a lot less than other actions that do more for Wikimedia. --Rschen7754 01:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

        • Most of them aren't locally blocked, no, and they can theoretically be reactivated, although if and when that happens is left to the obscure programming. What, though, do you refer to as other actions? I am not averse to becoming active in anything I feel comfortable with, but spambots are usually locked, are they not? Of course, if there was a discussion that decided that overall they aren't worth locking then I'm comfortable with stopping... -- Mentifisto 20:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

          • Generally when stewards have this much of an activity jump around confirmations it results in a lot of mistakes (example: Axpde) and that is evidenced below. However, I would now say that the comments Mentifisto has left on this page are now grounds by itself to vote for removal. Mentifisto, some advice: your replies are now only making things worse and digging yourself further into the hole. --Rschen7754 02:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

            I favour clarification over not participating in a discussion... which comments specifically, though, and why are they 'digging'? And where exactly have I made mistakes? Feel free to look over my logs and pinpoint any possible false positives, I'm always open to that. -- Mentifisto 20:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

            In that diff you both claim ignorance of the errors and defend yourself against the errors. I'm done here. --Rschen7754 19:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

            I'm not entirely sure what specifically you refer to, but if you're 'done' then I guess I'm not even sure what to respond to; I am still always open to discussions, though. -- Mentifisto 21:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep--GZWDer (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• I didn't see them much, but clear positive to stay on. I don't think they will misuse tools, so though activity is low, still okay. However, I hope to see more activity in the year ahead.{{k}}--Cohaf (talk) more details of my vote here 14:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)striken per developments.--Cohaf (talk) 04:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC) Neutral. I feel that they are not active enough after more review and that may hamper performance,and basically per Jianhui67. --Cohaf (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Further note:Their activity has risen very significantly after remove votes comes in, good developments but the unnecessary drama here keeps me in neutral. If they are kept, hope they will continue this activity level for good time or else the same remove arguments will be there next year. At least this improvement shows they are receptive to feedback which is good. --Cohaf (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  Well, as mentioned elsewhere I wasn't active due to relativity in missing an essential, efficacious tool, which I'm currently utilizing (and will in a hypothetical future), but ultimately the past is the past which I can't reverse. -- Mentifisto 20:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep not causing harm. Activity is low, but there is no evidence that is harming any wikimedia project in his capacity as a steward. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Remove Per my comments at User:Vermont/SE/2019#Mentifisto. TL;DR, minimal community involvement for almost 7 years. Vermont (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Remove Per Vermont's concerns. A minimal activity is expected, and always keeping on/little above the point where the line is drawn is not good. Unfortunately, picking up the pace now, few days before the election, is too late, in my opinion. His loginwiki check stats (see) show that even when locking spambots, no check is done to see if there are other accounts being used for spamming on the same IP. —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 15:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

  The thing is there is no line at all. I've also just been told that this isn't satisfactory, if it was never and been told before then I would have adapted, so by all means I invite anyone to tell me at any point in the year... -- Mentifisto 15:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

  The line is not explicitly defined, but it does exist, and you can see you're being evaluated on that. Also, everywhere else where it is explicitly defined, you are keeping yourself slightly above it. —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 19:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

  • May I ask why it is too late? How does it matter if it's two thousand within condensed time and two thousand within a year? I mean, sure, there are other community-related activities that I need to be active in, and I will in the next year considering my usage of multilock which will certainly facilitate my overall activity (as noticed), but I am not actually trying to keep myself 'above' anything because it was never established in the first place. With multilock, though, I can, I think, do about twenty thousand as described below in my attempted calculation, if indeed that is all that is considered (yes, bewildering that I've missed it for so many years... but I'm not a Prince of Persia with an hourglass suddenly able to wind back what may have been), so I can only show that if its usage is satisfactory then I shall continue as such, but as stated I can't, unfortunately, fix omissions confined to an impermeable part of history. -- Mentifisto 20:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Remove This is a pattern, and I am reminded of the 2015 confirmations where the exact same issue lead to similar arguments. Experience shows there are absolute no expectations for the situation to improve, nor can the very few steward actions performed be regarded as useful. Someone who vanished from the community for so many years should not hold such sensitive user permissions, without using them to contribute in a manner beneficial to the steward team. --Vogone (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

  Perhaps it's the same problem, then... the 'issue' is what, exactly? Am I supposed to be a mind reader? I try to do more but unless there is a general consensus no one knows and everyone has different thresholds. I'm sure there is someone who wouldn't be satisfied unless there is an action a minute, but even then they don't say it, perhaps because it's an absurd amount, and ultimately, unless there is an average consensus, no one knows what more is. -- Mentifisto 15:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

  No problem, I can repeat the 'issue' in case you missed it: Someone who vanished from the community for so many years should not hold such sensitive user permissions, without using them to contribute in a manner beneficial to the steward team. --Vogone (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Remove, with regrets. The concerns with activity level has persisted for some terms and is not something new for this steward. Meanwhile they used to hold local sysop rights at Meta which got removed due to inactivity about 3 years ago. They did not attempt to regain adminship at Meta, and performed some local admin actions nonetheless. I actually don't have a problem with stewards who are not Meta admins to perform admin actions at Meta regarding vandalism or spam, though I think it's better to leave some non-emergency ones (such as author request page deletions) to local admins. If they intend to increase activity level they could have gained local Meta sysop back. If their activity no longer becomes a concern, I don't mind supporting them re-elected as steward. -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 16:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

  Well, they might have persisted because no one is clear about what is adequate, I try to do more, but what is more? -- Mentifisto 16:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keepnet possitive Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Remove as per concerns raised above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Low activity ≠ no activity. Miniapolis 18:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Activity for stewards is not necessarily measured by an easy count of actions. There is engagement on the private list, availability on IRC/Discord/other venues, and of course the type and quality of steward actions. Mentifisto has had no presence on the list for years, and generally only locks spambot accounts without even blocking the IPs/ranges associated with them. To me, this indicates essentially zero useful activity with the steward permissions. Despite this, I am not voting to remove them, because I think we should actively work to re-engage users who are slipping away rather than hitting them with the door on their way out. I do recognize that this has been going on for a long time, which is why I am not supporting confirmation either. I hope that you commit to engaging in a more meaningful way with the steward team this coming year. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

At what point does attempting to re-engage a steward become futile? They haven't been active for almost 7 years. Vermont (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, I can try to see what sufficient activity is, and as suggested above you or anyone else who desires can give me feedback on it. I really do not mind such active feedback, as opposed to once a year. -- Mentifisto 18:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Active feedback is reasonable to expect if you make errors, not if you are inactive. Nobody is monitoring whether other stewards are active or not during the year. You've received similar feedback (re: inactivity) at confirmations for years now, so I am less sympathetic than if this were a one-off thing. And Vermont, point taken. The length of time is why I am not supporting confirmation. But, I have removed the bit about the door, since I think the concerns presented here are very reasonable. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I've received feedback but nothing specific, and not throughout the year. Can no one be specific? Why can't an 'average ideal' be established? If not, how is anyone to know whether it's sufficient or not, especially just at one point in a year? I'm trying to see whether things could be more fluid, but ultimately, there is a 'guidelines' page, so why can't this be included within it? Is it really so impossible to make concrete such desires? -- Mentifisto 18:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Because no one numerical standard can account for the variety of steward actions. Locking spambots can net hundreds of actions per minute, but makes absolutely no difference because it doesn't prevent any abuse. Responding to complex SRCU requests in languages that you don't speak can take minutes or hours (thankfully usually not hours), but can have a profound impact in identifying long-term abuse and keeping the smaller projects safe. The point isn't to establish a complex standard of x locks, y checkuser actions, z permissions changes, and n posts to the mailing list per month, because engagement with the steward role looks different for everyone. And it is very clear, even without looking at involvement in the list or other private venues, which stewards are actively contributing and which are not doing much. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

How is it clear when everyone has their own personal standards? From your description, would that imply that even ten thousand logged actions can be insufficient? But sure, one can make a detailed post that is more substantive than ten others, though how can that be known without even looking? Is there really nothing objective that can be used as a measure? -- Mentifisto 18:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Clear on an individual basis, I guess. The point here is that you are essentially totally disengaged from doing useful steward work. I would welcome that to change. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, I can try to increase logged activity and monitor the list much more, but I'd welcome a discussion to include something more concrete about this too on Steward handbook, if only for the sake of moving from the individual, to the collectively-agreed, possibly objective basis. An RfC maybe? -- Mentifisto 19:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

You shouldn't need objective criteria in order to be active. You are either you are active or you are not. You are not and are now doing everything you can to put the blame on anyone and anything but yourself. No one has computer problems for years. Every other steward has dealt with essentially the same things you have but have remained much more active than you. As MF-Warburg puts it below, if you put more energy into being a Steward throughout the year than you have for these discussions, then, well, we wouldn't need to have these discussions. Nihlus 17:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I haven't had them for years, no, but in addition to the general chaos of life and the inevitability of efficiency happening to pass me by (as explicated below), the fact is that I ended up with around a hundred and fifty logged actions this year, if this countable measure is what is being discussed here... but as shown, at least on the day you posted this comment, I made nearly a thousand actions, which indeed is absurd when compared to the rest of the year, but not much I can do about something I happened to miss - I am not omniscient, I concede that - but now that I've discovered it there is surely no possibility that, if, again, only countable activity is being thought of, in the future I would be as inactive as to result in merely a hundred and fifty, but I can't reverse time... -- Mentifisto 20:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Remove - given the continued inappropriate replies to feedback here, evidence that you are not sufficiently up to speed with appropriate use of the CheckUser tool (inappropriate reasons for checks, checking ranges far larger than necessary to prevent abuse), and the fact that you seem to have forgotten that you are no longer a Meta sysop. I was going to suggest that you expand your activity beyond locking spambots, but at this point I don't trust that you are up to speed on any other aspect of the steward role, and would not trust your opinion in those areas. Take a year off, re-engage with your various local roles, re-learn the policy and apply again next year if you really want to retain your steward access. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  Ranges aren't necessarily too large, I just made a test today gradually increasing the number and there were more spambots prior in a larger range, so the question then is, do we want to deal with spambots or not? With regards to reasons, it's automated from the template, wouldn't it be more efficient to change the template instead if it's ineffective? And I thought this allowed uncontroversial deletions, or should spambots be locked but their pages not deleted? Can you also be specific as to what is inappropriate in my replies here, or are replies generally? -- Mentifisto 08:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  Regarding MSR, yes stewards can perform non-controversial actions related to their steward work, but your use of the deletion tool here goes into the realm of actions that could easily be handled by local admins (like deleting pages per author request). Regarding your replies, you are bludgeoning the discussion, which is disruptive and unbecoming of a steward. Asking some questions or clarifying some points is acceptable; responding to large numbers of comments is not, especially when you are either intentionally or unintentionally ignoring what is being said to you. As an example, a repeated concern here is that you are inactive between confirmations. Being active during the confirmations is not a way to address that concern. All you can do is say "sorry I'll do better", and the appropriate thing to do would be to say that once, not to everyone in the remove camp individually. These confirmations are a place for the community to give feedback, not for you to argue endlessly about why you should remain a steward. – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  So... this implies I can't reply now? As someone else, said this requires discussion and not a simple voting process, otherwise why not use closed balloting? I also understand the sense of diminishing returns with 'bludgeoning' (which is an essay, not policy), but as mentioned, just as this response is trying, I think replying to some statements to clarify is potentially useful, otherwise discussions will retain misconceptions (like e.g. when the .js pages were linked) and other people will opine according to those... if, on the other hand, they decide to ignore discussions and responses that is also their prerogative, but I favour clarification over not participating in a discussion. Also, I didn't literally respond to every single statement (e.g. those with no rationales, which by default can't be replied to). -- Mentifisto 20:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Remove What an embarrassing charade. The inactivity is lasting for years now, as others have demonstrated. If you would take only half of the energy you muster for discussions about why you should stay a steward and put it into doing steward work, nobody would complain. --MF-W 19:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

  But I did do something, just not as much as some desire. What do you think is adequate? -- Mentifisto 19:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

  Do you intend to respond to every remove vote like this? At what point does it become discouraging to voice an opinion? Vermont (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

  Hard limits don't make too much sense because different actions are of different "value". It looks like you are only looking for one in order to be able to say "I'm over it, I must keep my rights", to be honest. Also, different people value different things, and it's good that it can all be evaluated in the confirmations. One issue might also be that people are more prone to accept some degree of little activity if it happens once or twice, but not 7 times. --MF-W 20:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

  Well... hopefully you don't mind a bit of a rehash from below if you already read it, but it does seem it was around seven times due to multilock's existence, which as mentioned I regret missing, but not much I can do about the past (except for utilizing it now, although some still dislike that in itself)... with regards to the former argument, it's not so much as to do enough, but to just have at least a benchmark, otherwise, as mentioned elsewhere, what is enough? A thousand in a day? But people still seem to think it's not enough, although does anyone do three hundred and sixty thousand in a year? One must admit, individuals have a variable desire, an expectation that is ever-changing, and so what ever is truly sufficient? Even if it doesn't concern logged actions, one may expect e.g. at least fifty interactions on a mailing list, another a hundred (but yes, I admit I was terribly deficient with regards to that, although of course, in contrast to logged actions one may not prove any such capability except insofar as the future can prove, i.e. ultimately I can only show through logged actions that I can be active, but I do intend to equal that activity in the future in other spheres, whether #wikimedia-stewards, ##stew, or the list unless unable to remain after this process concludes, but regardless as stated in my rewritten statement I will remain active wherever I could, regardless of the outcome). -- Mentifisto 20:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Remove per Vermont. You are always welcome to run again. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 20:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Remove per Vermont. While I'm generally tolerant to low activity I feel this has stretched on far too long and the user in question's comments do nothing but reinforce my opinion. Hiàn (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. I understand Vermont's concerns, but I think the activity has been sufficient. --AGK ■ 21:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Remove per Vermont --Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Remove activity levels are too low to retain in my opinion. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Remove - yet again demonstrates a total unawareness of the full steward responsibilities, lacking involvement and updated knowledge of what is expected from a steward. Savh^ñ 23:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

  Mentifisto has performed about 100 steward actions every year since 2016, which isn't much but is indeed something. However, it is not an active involvement and the focus seems to be on being (minimally) active to keep the rights instead of keeping the rights to use them significantly, as can be determined from his comments here. Additionally, all (or most, as far as I checked) the locks performed in 2018 seem to concern spambot accounts blocked by the Meta abusefilter, whose harm is therefore (usually) limited. Locking without checking is easy but quite useless, in fact the abusefilter automatically does most of the job, as this spambot patterns do tend to share IP's but they rarely are active cross-wiki any more. I might - myself - be out of sync on this aspect, as I quit being a steward over a year ago.

  The same seems to happen on Simple where one could not really say the user is involved or active even though he formally is. The Simple English Wikipedia requires at least 100 edits & logged actions (combined) in a natural year for administrators to retain their acces. Mentifisto performed, in 2018, 92 edits and 63 logs (155) all but 9 between October and December. In 2017 he had 108 edits and 10 logged actions (118), all but 8 in November and December and 14 of those 118 were on the 31st of December and stopping again immediately after this. In 2016, he performed 6 logged actions and 99 edits (105), of which 12 edits on the 31st of December, followed by edits in november 2017. Now he seems to be lobbying for for such a formal definition here as well, but complying with the minimum simply shouldn't be the mindset to be a steward.

  After concerns were raised about his inactivity in his 2015 confirmation, Mentifisto affirmed "I won't just be active in the confirmations... I just upped my levels and will remain consistent in the future..." and performed for the remainder of the year about 400 steward actions. However, over half (+/-250) were in the month following the confirmations. I believe to be rightly concerned that the upped activity we are experiencing now is again temporary.

  I would encourage the user to use the time by real involvement by contributing to these projects instead of doing the minimal effort to be formally active and involved in order to retain rights. Savh^ñ 16:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  Well, savh, as I mentioned on IRC I do check them now (and lock only those which follow a certain pattern), now as written elsewhere here before I only had a relatively minimal amount of activity due to missing multilock, which I take responsibility for (although sadly admit my lack of omniscience), but be aware that this was a relative perception when it concerns comparisons, and if logged actions is principally what people want then it's very easy with multilock, isn't it? (cf. my recent usage of it.) With regards to other wikis, though, how are they related when this role explicitly excludes activity on homewikis? If you mean to refer to a sense of general activity, well, I haven't stopped (see logs), but then the argument still is: how much is adequate? Lobbying refers to... a consensus that usually occurs on every wiki for every role? If you think an 'x' amount on 'y' wiki is insufficient, why not open a discussion about it? I really don't mean to do a minimal amount, but as asked elsewhere, is there no reasonable amount? It seems people here may think even a thousand logged actions a day isn't enough... how else, though, could one physically do more, unless time itself is stopped and one is active within that space? At some point there just isn't time, besides the fact everyone has their own lives... and then, aren't wikis supposed to be places where things are done by everyone, but since it's a volunteer project and everyone has differing amounts of time (not to mention timezones), and since no one is paid, everyone sort of nods an acknowledgement of such limitations and differences? -- Mentifisto 03:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  Please stop wilfully and repeatedly misinterpreting the feedback on your activity. "Logged actions is principally what people want" cannot be concluded from many comments here which reject the idea of arbitrary log action thresholds, which is in fact an idea you yourself have brought up here. And what it takes to be considered even remotedly involved has been sufficiently answered, even by your fellow stewards here. --Vogone (talk) 10:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  I have repeatedly stated myself that it's not all, but that time can only facilitate that, I only just mentioned this above since Savh mentioned these stats specifically, so I replied to such a context. -- Mentifisto 19:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  No one is indeed looking for an 'inflated' number of logged actions, no one cares about the numbers if they are not a representation of the activity, people expect stewards to be really active. A single multilock can indeed equal over 100 locks, but that is - as many people have mentioned here before - not an adequate measure of active involvement and one of the reasons why no one (except you) is looking to define activity in a specific number of logged actions. I also checked, partly also to reply to this comment: All but one of the spambots you locked in between confirmations had already been automatically blocked on meta. If you would be actively involved, you would know - without the need to ask for endless discussions (as you do there with regard to the need to lock spambots already blocked, and on multiple threads regarding a definition of minimal activity and also in previous instances) - what is useful and what is not. Performing around 100 barely useful locks of accounts that were all already blocked is definitely not really a contribution. Additionally, your reply in which you indicate "Ranges aren't necessarily too large, I just made a test today gradually increasing the number and there were more spambots prior in a larger range, so the question then is, do we want to deal with spambots or not?" shows that you're currently too uninvolved to know how to properly use the tools. No one expects you to be omniscient either, no one is. However, missing the existence of MultiLock for 6 years yet again shows how disconnected you are from this community, and one wonders how much else you have missed.

  The simplewiki example I found pretty illustrative of how you abuse minimums to minimally comply with them, to avoid being stripped of the rights. However, your activity always disappears as soon as it's January, since simple considers a natural year for its inactivity removal. You don't mean to do the minimum, you say, but there you (nearly) do the minimum 3 years straight. Should I assume that was a coincidence?

  As we discussed on IRC, locks should only be performed when it is pretty certainly a spambot. It currently seems that you cannot determine that with sufficient certainty, including the lock of RodrigoactBernardino and your lack of experience and knowledge with regards to the checkuser function (as commented by Ajraddatz above). Basically, a username in CamelCase found when checking a very large IP range does not simply mean it is a spambot, but not matching your (ironically erroneous) pattern, without bothering to check properly, does not mean it isn't a spambot. Savh^ñ 20:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not sure why you think only spambots blocked here are usually locked, I've dealt with ones blocked on other wikis or not blocked at all. With regards to ranges, it is a fact that larger ranges result in more spambots, test it yourself, some result in tens more whereas a check on the original singular IP results in perhaps two, or just the one. How is this about involvement when it's mostly a technical aspect and which networks spambots choose to park on? And when it comes to multilock... it was created two years after my election, at which point I happened to miss the singular notification about it. I'm not trying to justify it, but if it's not negative in itself to not be omniscient why is this specific accident so crucial to being overall involved? I could have, after all, theoretically been much more active using singular locks, but it is admittedly very efficient to use multilock instead. But, ultimately, I can only show what my usage would result in... although, if such activity isn't what anyone is looking for, then how exactly does anyone make an informed decision on general activity? (But yes, as mentioned elsewhere I plan to be active in 'non-countable' areas, including otrs recently as I was already responding to info-en tickets at any rate, nothing crucial, but I plan to monitor it.)

  With regards to spambot username patterns, I'm trying to be as cautious as possible... it may seem ironic considering there were two confirmed ones, but generally there aren't many with three capitals, so I err on the side of caution... isn't that what you desire with the initial example? Currently there are quite a few spambots without edits or AF triggers that are locked by everyone, so... should we have a discussion on whether that should happen at all to be as cautious as possible? -- Mentifisto 20:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  I never said I think "only spambots blocked here are usually locked", I said you mostly locked spambots which were already blocked on meta (91 of your 94 locks). I'm not going to waste more of my time by further replying here, since you only selectively reply to tergiversations of the concerns I raise, and I have nothing to add to my comments and the absurd & concerning replies you provide. The only thing the community is discussing here is your confirmation as a steward, repeatedly trying to claim a need for community discussion to validate concerns raised about you is ridiculous and counterproductive. Savh^ñ 23:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  Before January, yes, but since I found this new tool it is very much easier to expand the variety, and as mentioned I can't at this stage reverse time and alter the past Back to the Future-style (excuse my couple of references already on this page, I'm not sure if some may think these specifically are 'inappropriate', but I'm trying to utilize external culture to induce a little bit of humour if it is at all possible at this stage). Unless, of course, the DB itself is edited, which I noticed is possible on a local installation, it is moot and useless to even attempt to defend myself at this point, I can only do what I showed I could do after the timeline you linked to. And, um, by 'tergiversations' I assume you mean equivocation? I apologise if my replies seem absurd, I am mainly attempting to probe the logic of various arguments, but do you mean none of these discussions so far should have happened and closed balloting used? Or do you mean my reason for "lobbying" for a general consensus is 'ridiculous'? Because I still think, and will probably remain convinced that a more rational approach to reconfirmations can improve the process, since as it is no one deny that 'standards' (which inherently exist in individuals, some explicitly written) vary, not only within each person (as with every other value in the world at large) but, when it comes to yearly reconfirmations, people who opine differ too. So, then, that inevitably includes a smorgasbord of variables, not only of such values, but also individuals wherein some regularly comment annually, some others do not this year or the next, and others who comment for the first time who, for some, have completely different values (some e.g. do not like those who have done this for a long time, others think OC and this role should be separate, both of which are valid concerns to those who so opine)... ultimately, no one can really know what anyone's values are, how they differ, or even who may opine, and so it seems to me it is similar to a dice deciding an outcome sometimes, although of course it then depends on whether those values also resonate with others'. Hopefully, this shines some light on my thought process of why I think this might be a rational way to go about it, but, of course, if there isn't even a consensus on initiating a discussion in the first place about a possible consensus on an average standard, then that is certainly consensus in itself. -- Mentifisto 21:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Remove per above concerns.--BRP ^ever 08:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• Remove per their repeated reassurances as to improving activity in the future--which indicates awareness that there is room for improvement--but that never subsequently materialises. This suggests the community's oft-stated concerns are not, perhaps, being taken as seriously as one would hope for in a Steward. ——SerialNumber54129 08:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  Subsequently (post-2015) I had the same problem that I had up to recently with regards to multilock as described elsewhere, Serial Number 54129; unfortunate I had only recently discovered it, but is recent activity as a sample adequate if it were extrapolated over the long-term? -- Mentifisto 19:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Remove His lawyer-ing comments over here coupled with a perpetual inactivity. Feel free to re-apply next time; if you exhibit considerable activity for an year or so. I am though willing to change my stance; based on his steward-activities in the next 20 days, since I generally do not held low activity to be a significant constraint.Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 08:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Vote changed.Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per TonyBallioni. --Vituzzu (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• Remove Thank you for your service! – KPFC 💬 10:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• Remove--Brainswiffer (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. I believe that there is still a net gain with keeping his rights. I can't judge Mentifisto's performance by his private actions, so my opinion is only based on what I saw in the logs. Since the last confirmation round until the end of 2018 (therefore, not including the "pre-confirmation" period, where normally stewards tend to increase their activities), Mentifesto made more than 90 steward actions. It is a low level of activity? Yes, but not low enough to remove the rights. Also, I do not remember that his actions have caused harm, and therefore I do not see a strong reason to remove. Érico (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep as per TonyBallioni and Miniapolis. --Garam (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral This is a hard decision. Not because it would be regretful for someone who has been a steward for so long, but because some of the comments show an activity level, though on the lower side, is not enough for an oppose. However, your steward statement is poor (last year's statement was also quite passive and dry), and suggests a lack of interest in the role, sadly. If this was your request for stewardship, such a statement wouldn't pass the test. Leaderboard (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  I had updated it in response to the context of the comments generally. -- Mentifisto 19:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Remove Based on comments here combined with general inactivity. They are either trying to lawyer or genuinely don't understand the feedback being offered. Either way this is not the skills/disposition I would hope a steward to have. This attitude gives little confidence in how well they would perform were they to sustain increased activity. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  I really wasn't consciously trying to act like a lawyer, I'm trying to reflect my understanding of various comments and reply if clarification could be provided. -- Mentifisto 19:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

And someone who feels the need to reflect understanding or thinks that clarification is needed on most editors who suggest that you should not be retained as steward is again not the kind of disposition I want from a steward. As a leader of the community a steward should be able to take feedback, positive and negative. As my original comment stated the behavior shown here gives me little confidence in how you would carry out the more sensitive aspects of the position. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

But seeking clarification is an effort to understand and implement the feedback. But, also, I think there is a bit of a misconception as to the role... sysops are often called 'janitors'... stewards then merely fill in when sysops and other local users aren't available. I do not think it's a leadership position, really... the community at large, by consensus, decides direction (as indeed happens here), which 'leaders' in the conventional sense usually do. This role isn't an 'executive' per se, but more verification of a community's already established consensus. -- Mentifisto 21:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Remove Absolutely not. Your activity on your home wiki is embarrassing, and the fact that you have sensitive rights is troubling. Users with such rights are expected to have their finger on the pulse of the community, which I don't believe you've been able to say in almost 10 years. That coupled with you doing just enough to retain these rights shows that you shouldn't have them; your comments here only reaffirm that belief. Nihlus 15:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  I could try to increase activity generally, but what do homewikis have to do with this role where homewikis are explicitly excluded even for non-controversial actions? -- Mentifisto 19:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Remove per the bland statement and insufficient activity level to warrant keeping the tools. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  I had updated it in response to the context of the comments generally. -- Mentifisto 19:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Remove per above Hhkohh (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral The number of editions or steward actions that a user performs during a period of time is not a reason to remove, however, I am neutral because of the somewhat "challenging" answers that the user has given to those who oppose to confirmation. —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 19:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  Sorry if they might appear that way, I'm trying to inquire for clarifications and provide any information that may missing in specific cases. -- Mentifisto 19:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Remove Per comments above. The toolkit is expected to be used significantly. Esteban16 (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• Note: Mentifisto's original statement was: "Deal mostly with spambots, check RC for updates, but can't believe another year slipped by..." They replaced it with a statement that seemed to justify 7 years of inactivity with procrastinating to fix an IRC client. Considering their spur of activity after they noticed remove votes coming in, I doubt that. Vermont (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  For anyone reading this (although stated elsewhere), no, the client was broken for the last couple of years or so, but I had relative inactivity due to somehow missing multilock, which baffles and annoys even myself, but can't reverse the flow of time and could only begin using it. -- Mentifisto 19:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep as per TonyBallioni SQL^{Query me!} 01:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral I have nothing against you personally, but I'm not in favour of performing a few actions to keep the steward tools. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 07:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Remove no opposition to a new application when you will be active again on Wikimedia projects. Linedwell ^[talk] 08:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Remove per above. Concerns with limited activity levels -FASTILY 09:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Remove --cyrfaw (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Remove Widr (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Remove per many of the above. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Remove per above inactivity concerns. I don't feel a Steward should be outpaced on edits (or actions) by a dedicated IP user. Operator873^talkconnect 17:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  Which IP user, exactly...? -- Mentifisto 07:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

This IPv6 editor (one example) who consistently and reliably creates and edits geography articles on the Simple English Wikipedia is a good example from my home project. I attribute this activity to the same editor by the same reasoning we attribute abusive IP ranges to LTAs: DUCK. I will point out that you not being familiar with this regular IP editor on a project which you currently hold advanced permissions with only serves to reinforce other editors' concerns voiced here about your detachment from the community and general inactivity or disinterest. Operator873^talkconnect 05:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

But what difference does it make whether it's an IP or someone with an account? And how is article creation connected to the meta role here, much less geography? (While on encyclopedias it is desired, yet not central to the maintenance toolset, on meta these kind of articles aren't relevant, really...) -- Mentifisto 05:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I should offer my apologies. SEWP sysop =/= Steward and I should not use an IP editor on a small project as comparison to a Steward's role in the community. My initial point, however, stands. I remain a remove vote based on inactivity. Operator873^talkconnect 18:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep --Dostojewskij (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral, became (very) active just before confirmations, should have been little bit more active during the year (and I don't mean only onwiki actions). Not happy to their reactions either. Stryn (talk) 08:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep ~Cybularny ^Speak? 11:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Remove --M-J (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Remove per concerns about activity raised above. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
• Remove --Krd 08:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep, rather as a last chance. I would accept the explanation of lack of IRC and scripts only if activity increases next year, otherwise my would would switch to Remove next year — NickK (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Mentifisto promised in 2015 that he would resume activity; it lasted for about a month. Vermont (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Vermont: I tend to believe the procrastination explanation and that doing steward work without any scripts did not work for him. I would thus support giving another chance to improve activity. The only thing we can lose is trust in Mentifisto's statements as he is definitely qualified, acts in good faith and would not harm our projects. The thing we can win is an active and experienced steward. For me advantages of keeping these rights are stronger than disadvantages — NickK (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It could take one about 3 minutes to get on with the Freenode web interface (which he did once remove votes started coming in), or a few more to make an IRCCloud account. I'll also note that someone who procrastinated for multiple years to spend a few minutes to get back onto IRC is not someone I believe should retain steward permissions. I'm not sure what you mean by without any scripts; his scripts, which hasn't been touched in more than 3 years, still work fine. Vermont (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you please stop presuming? When I referred to 'scripts' I meant those for an IRC client, nothing to do with javascript, and I still lack a lot of macros and such. -- Mentifisto 11:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I apologize; I misconstrued it as being onwiki scripts. Regardless, it's remarkably easy nowadays to get onto IRC, and I see no reason why you wouldn't have been able to get on since March 2017. Even then, you only remained online for about 34 days. Vermont (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

For a while I thought it would be sufficient to use just the web for this (and as mentioned I had many digital problems in between then and now, hopefully no more), but it's clearly not as even as soon as I hopped on recently I was presented with the exponential potential (per se) of utilizing a medium where bots abound. -- Mentifisto 17:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. --Yair rand (talk) 06:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Remove with sadness, but I agree with Vermont, Vogone and Savh above. In addition, no actual involvement with fellow stewards on discussions, Meta, etc. for several years already. Sorry. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral --Elmie (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - They seems to be active now; Activity increased; Giving this year a chance would be good i guess; We need a helping hand. Kind regards, — TBhagat (contribs | talk) 16:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  Tulsi, let's consider the following. Mentifisto hasn't been particularly active for several years and this is the only burst of activity where I can confidently say he's being active. He promised activity on a prior confirmation and made no real attempt to follow through on that promise and we haven't seen him active on any of his home wikis for 7+ years. There's a stark difference between someone saying they'll help out more and someone who actually does. Wouldn't you agree that we have given him well enough chances after several years? Hiàn (talk)/_{editing on mobile account} 16:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  After that time was when I started getting computer problems, so I had to fix them first before anything, also due to that I missed the creation of multilock, which I'm now utilizing. It's quite convenient, so if you think this amount of activity is sufficient, with the aforementioned tool it is even easier to be active than in 2015, so I'd almost certainly (lest computers die constantly one after another in the near future, which is unlikely, and this one seems stable). But... yes, if this activity is sufficient I could certainly continue at this rate. -- Mentifisto 17:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  Sure, that's fair - but your track record has already proven you to be rather unreliable when it comes to promises, eh? I don't see any particular reason why any of us should remotely trust you to keep this activity up. Hiàn (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  Because multilock is efficient. I'm not entirely sure why and if I've used it before, but I am now, and I could have never done nearly a thousand logged actions as I did today individually. If I used it before then perhaps that single action you see would have been perhaps ten, but really, when it can handle even a hundred at once, it's truly efficient and practically impossible to not be active. I just ask that I'm given a chance because I have somehow suddenly discovered this most efficient technology and it is like transitioning from typing with one finger to touch typing. -- Mentifisto 22:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  The fact that you had no clue about 2013-era tools kinda proves how disconnected you are from the group and the role. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  Well, I regret the fact, but if one even misses a single notification about new developments then it's missed, and it doesn't help that it's not even an extension in its own right it seems. But, yes, I'm not omniscient, although I strive to improve, and if it's being active that is wanted then this can only help, right? I think it's like wikimarkup, while we may all know a substantial amount there is always something that is learned eventually, and like with any other subject, even extensive knowledge doesn't preclude omissions. -- Mentifisto 23:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  Multilock wasn't a single notification, nor is it anything near comparable to an obscure piece of wikimarkup. It's literally one of the most important steward tools which you've been the only person unaware of for nearly six years. Vermont (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, but there wasn't any fanfare about it, and at any rate let us focus on the present. In years past problems with activity comparisons seemed to stem from relativity due to the exponential nature (it's interesting even for myself to see how exactly I ended up with only ~150 actions in a year when yesterday I did more than double that amount and today about six times, truly efficacious). So, I ask for one last chance, because as demonstrated there is no way I can be inactive now (unless I outright die at which point none of this matters anyway). -- Mentifisto 23:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  I must admit I am slowly getting bored by these constant replies of which every single confirms the reason why there are so many people on the remove side here. The issue presented was a lack of involvement and not-so-useful occasional locks of spambots and you are now seriously begging for "one last chance" while promising to do the same just on a bigger scale log-action wise? Please do us a favour and resign immediately instead of continuing this counterproductive "charade" as MF-Warburg rightly called it. --Vogone (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  So... I can't reply? I'm trying to be understanding here, what else can I do? Now the question is: is locking spambots not useful? It's debatable, but as it is everyone does it, so what exactly is wrong about it? If I increase my activity in this context how can I not be involved? I can't reverse time, but I can fix the issues raised. -- Mentifisto 23:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  You're replying but aren't really saying much. The point many of us are making is that there is nothing you can do, as you've clearly talked you way through the last couple of confirmations by essentially lying to the community about your planned activity levels. It appears the community has finally caught on. Nihlus 00:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  I'm trying to explain what has happened, I would have lied if I did nothing at all in the past year, not a single action, did I? No, what my replies indicated is that relativity in comparisons is what is perceived. Are you saying I was inactive today, yesterday? I've done nearly two thousand logged actions since February, and unless they're abusive (in which case feel free to revert them), how do they say I'm inactive? Unless we have different definitions of activity, and with regards to the long-term I explained how I'd be active. See, with such levels of recent activity (as long as we agree on that statement) it would be patently absurd to just suddenly stop, so if I go from about 2000 in two weeks to, let's say, not even a thousand a month (or you name the amount) then I'll admit I'm not active and you have every right to your accusation, but with multilock it's more than possible; how could I lie about this when my actions show it? -- Mentifisto 00:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  Because you a clearly aware that your status as steward is in jeopardy. That is really the only reason. We're looking at the big picture and not just the last three weeks. Nihlus 01:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  No, the reason is multilock, do you think I could have done a thousand in a day individually? There wouldn't be enough seconds in the day. It's not just the last three weeks, but if I can do so much with multilock in three weeks then if I do, say, a thousand a week (today was like a test to see how much I could do if I spent most of the day, but clearly not sustainable for over three hundred days, I'd admit that), extrapolated I can theoretically do 52000 a year. Sure, it'll be variable (realistically less, but even twenty thousand would be adequate, no?), but it's entirely possible with the efficacy of multilock. -- Mentifisto 01:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

You don't spring from one spambot lock every few days to thousands a month because of finding a years-old steward tool you've been too uninvolved to know about. You made the same promise in 2015, and I see no reason why we should trust you this time. I also find it unlikely you "discovered" MultiLock immediately after remove votes became rolling in. Vermont (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll also note you've currently proposed the following reasons as to why you've been inactive: broken computer, lost IRC client configuration files, not knowing about Special:MultiLock, lost interest in Wikimedia, and that you haven't been inactive. They're all mutually exclusive. Vermont (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

If I knew about it before why wouldn't I have used it? I seriously did the previous locks all individually (see timestamps), why otherwise would I be so intentionally inefficient? Also, was I uninvolved or did I unlikely discover it (kind of mutually exclusive)? In 2015 I genuinely wasn't aware of such technological efficacy, which I regret, but as mentioned one can't go back in time. I can only exist in the present, and recently I've demonstrated that this tool can make me far more efficient than before, but of course this depends on if my definition of 'activity' is the same as that which others think of, which is logged actions. With regards to involvement in other affairs I can only continue on a linear timeline and and use IRC and notifications for mailing lists.

And, I'm not sure how broken computers are incompatible with broken IRC clients, one depends on the other, lost interest insofar as individual locks seemed monotonous, which was rectified by multilock; I've also mentioned I thought I wasn't inactive until I realized it was due to relativity (you mentioned a year which coincides with multilock's creation, which is why I had this recent realization especially after using it quite a bit in the last few days). -- Mentifisto 02:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Your response attempts to completely walk around the argument I said above. I will summarize it plainly: your claims are hypocritical. You've been inactive and disconnected for years and are attempting to play that off as normal; for 5 years there's been votes in your SE confirmations complaining of a lack of activity. Vermont (talk) 03:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

But it's exactly what I referred to, the same amount of years since multilock's creation, I'm annoyed I missed it but, unless 'activity' refers to not necessarily countable actions (which I'll still stay afloat by remaining on IRC), with it I'm sure I'll rectify all the concerns (I'll maintain my current activity). -- Mentifisto 04:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Vermont: Most of us keep our comments to one, and with our direct (dis)confirmation, and I would appreciate it if you could do the same. I think that you are overly investing in this matter.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. If the Stewards feel this has been excessive, then they are more than capable of saying so themselves. However, a situation like this requires more nuance and discussion than a simple reasonless "Keep" vote will provide. Nihlus 10:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - Richardkiwi (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep -- I am satisfied at the recent levels and wish to echo NickK. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Remove as per Vermont, Vogone and Savh and some other above. --Kusurija (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Remove Did some anti-Chinese comments on SRM, which is clearly by-ethnic inappropriate. Very very low activity. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  This is a pretty strong comment to be making without a diff. Please have the courtesy to produce evidence or else withdraw this allegation. I cannot find any edit of Mentifisto during 2017, 2018 or what we've lived in 2019 in SRM. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Mentifisto has not edited SRM since 2010. Are you thinking of another person? Vermont (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Remove per Vermont, Savh, Rschen7754 and others. Doing just enough to keep your tools in many projects and then not understanding people's concerns, and instead wanting to know how many actions is enough to keep your biggest tools, is, well, concerning. -kyykaarme (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  But if there is no 'enough', then how can I do enough? I merely thought I was active but since I can not know what each individual has as an adequate 'standard' (which everyone still has, regardless of a consensus on such an average that usually is the result on most other wikis after discussions). How specifically have I not understood concerns? I hope I'm at least trying... -- Mentifisto 19:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Remove --Eurodyne (talk) 05:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• Remove Klaas `Z4␟` V:  17:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Remove, primarily per Rschen7754, Vermont & Nihlus. This is an extremely high level of privilege, status, and authority (however informal). Stewards need to be highly committed and engaged, and their status needs to be earned on an ongoing basis. It's not a status symbol or an entitlement. Per Rschen, the user does not have a strong interest in the work, which suggests that they are not a Steward for the right reasons. Additionally, the replies to the concerns come across as out of touch and bizarre. The lame excuses and the supposed inability to comprehend the straightforward concerns, it's just not believable, and it's just not a convincing argument compared to those advocating for removal. Swarm (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  What exactly implies I don't have interest? You refer to many arguments, but none specifically... so, I hope you don't mind me asking, but... how specifically am I out of touch that my replies reflect? And how are they bizarre? While missing a crucial toolkit such as multilock is indeed 'lame', I certainly am not justifying any positivity in such an oblivious outcome, and can only apologize for my oversight, but what else can I practically do?

  And, I also do understand concerns... I can see how e.g. since my election I had, in total, about 10,000 actions or thereabouts (if, yet again, we're talking solely about countable actions, which currently is mostly the only way to objectively analyze someone's activity)... since discovering multilock I made nearly, about 3000... that is in the last two weeks, which is totally "bizarre", I do admit. But, as "lame" as it may have been to miss multilock (created two years after my election, which I think contributed to my missing it... by nature, the mind is more open initially to everything, when it comes to any novel activities, and intrinsically learns more about an environment and, in this case, technological context, than if two years or so had passed... e.g. anyone can see that I used to handle AIV on enwp much, much more early on, did about 7000 blocks in about a year or so... but, neurochemically speaking, dopamine decreases in response to repeated activities... now, though, I've started again after many years and there certainly does seem to be more interest than, say, two years after my enwp RfA... this is mostly basic biology that, I think, affects everyone). Does this logic not make it believable? -- Mentifisto 21:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  More questions. "How?" "What?" You've asked "how?" in response to questions no less than 19 times. You've asked "what?" in response to questions no less than 14 times. I'm sorry, that's bizarre. I've never seen anything like it from a candidate undergoing a vetting process, from assessing low-level permission grants, to RfAs, and this is a Steward confirmation. It comes across as a bit manipulative if intentional, unglued if unintentional. I literally endorsed three specific rationales for opposing, and you're telling me I haven't referred to any specific arguments. Swarm (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Remove Inactivity has been far to high for such an important position. And it isn't a new concern it has been ongoing for quite awhile. I am pretty sure I had this same comment in 2015. And would have in the ones since but always seem to forget to come here during the confirmation period. -Djsasso (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  Well, as mentioned, it's due to missing multilock, which is the reason of my recent 'bursts' (as others have noticed); either way, I certainly hope if no one minds if I'm truly active in the future on all the wikis I was active on in the past (IRC makes it so easy). -- Mentifisto 21:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Remove "The more sensitive the permission, the more active someone needs to be, simply because the harm that can be done due to not keeping up with policy/tools is higher (and also that of someone compromising the account). Since Steward is the most sensitive permission of all, people should remain reasonably active." was about what I was going to comment a week ago but didn't get around to. Now, the inappropriate use of the CU tool as commented by Ajraddatz above and incorrect locking clearly demonstrate the harm of not keeping up with policy and tools, and so it is very clear they should not continue as Steward. Galobtter (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  Sorry, but I'd still argue that /16 results in more spambots (although I am recently starting with /20 since at times the other results in such a long list that is just inefficient to go through), unless it is decided in the future that spambots are useless to be locked (which can be a valid point considering they mostly only edit once), and which specific incorrect locking? My recent 2000+ locks are all incorrect? I invite you to specify, as I do very much try to be as cautious as possible (as mentioned above) and at best my couple of unlocks (with no edits and still matching the typical username patterns) were due to uncertainty, but I never locked any legitimate editor that later emailed the mailing list to be unlocked or such. I do spend quite a lot of time to verify that spambots match this pattern, and if by consensus it is decided that, on average, it's best to only lock those absolutely registered on the same IP then, being the safest option, I wouldn't mind confining all locks to that, but currently every other steward locks potential spambots from ranges, so I ask for consistency. -- Mentifisto 21:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Long trusted user willing to continue to contribute in a leadership role to the best of his availability. --Jacob (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral. Activity concerns have been raised each confirmation. It doesn't really matter if we don't have a minimum number for defining activity criteria. If community tells you that they are unhappy with your activity, keep performing the same level of activity won't change their mind. I also don't like to see an increase of participation when getting close to the elections in a way that makes it appear that the steward is more active than actually is. It makes the process less transparent. However, I trust Mentifisto on dealing with the tools. If it weren't for the activity issue, he would still be completely able to do the job.—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 21:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Remove after consideration of the above. --LilHelpa (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - every meaningful action is a useful action, that is more important than frequency (pardon my English, I am not trained) Bluemel1 (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Remove -- Enfcer (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Remove --Mirer (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral. Darkhan 20:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep --Melos (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Matanya (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• Remove per Vermont --DannyS712 (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep recent activity is more relevant than the older one, my request on IRC for Glock Crosswiki spam was solved by Menti.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 06:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep He wasn't as active as before but he is still around helps in time of need, I don't see any harms in him having his access Mardetanha ^talk 07:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)