The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship, request for bureaucratship, or request for checkusership. Please do not modify it.

Mentifisto

Mentifisto (talk · contribs)

End date: 04:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello all! I would like to present Mentifisto (talk · contribs) as a candidate for adminship. Since creating his account on February 19, 2009 (although only semi-active for awhile), Mentifisto has reverted tons of vandalism (see contribs), created many pages (see his userpage), has several correct VIP reports (see 1, 2, 3, and 4), and 20+ QD tags. He has proven to be trustworthy, is an administrator on the English Wikipedia, and will only be a benefit to the Simple English Wikipedia if granted the tools. Thank you. American Eagle (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by User:RyanCross: Mentifisto (talk · contribs) has been an active contributer to Simple English Wikipedia for just about three months now, and he has done quite a bit to help out the project. This includes many reverting of vandalism around the wiki, making accurate WP:QD requests, adding several reports to WP:VIP, creating and improving articles in the mainspace, and much more. These qualities are just right in admin candidates such as Mentifisto, and I feel he will be able to do much more for our project as an administrator, whether it involves blocking, protecting, or deleting. He is also an active administrator on the English Wikipedia (verify), so he does have some experience already which is always plus. I believe Mentifisto will be a fine administrator for Simple English Wikipedia, and hopefully the community feels the same way. Thank you. — RyanCross (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: I accept and thank both AE and RyanCross for the nom. I'd just like to help whenever I can without having to bother others with requests, and so hope that you'll trust me with this. -- Mentifisto 04:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support – as nom. American Eagle (talk) 05:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support J. B. A. (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. иιƒкч? 05:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sure. He'd make good use of the tools. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - yeh, he'll do a great work. Barras (talk) 07:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC) I really think you will do a good work as an admin, but the concerns of the opposers aren't so great. Barras (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I think Mentifisto has done great work here, and I trust him to use the tools. Please note however, that since I voted, I will not close this... :) --Eptalon (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Excellent user on en; good work here too. Pmlinediter  Talk 08:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong support - Fine user for the job. (and omg, eptalon voted :D ) Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 08:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Why wouldn't I support someone I co-nominated? That would be silly. :-) — RyanCross (talk) 10:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. experienced users are always needed -- Mercy (☎|✍) 10:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support User is under the three-month activity line, but I know them and trust them with the tools. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 12:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've thought long and hard this afternoon. As BG7 talked about switching votes, I hate to have caused such confusion. I've weighed both arguments, and although his WP count is low, the most important principle is trust with the block, delete and protect buttons. He's a sysop on EN, and has a reasonable level of activity here, so why shouldn't I? Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 00:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. I feel I can definitely trust Mentifisto with the tools. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Good interactions on en, and I'm thus sure he'll be fine here too.  GARDEN  19:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support No problems here. Razorflame 20:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Why not. -Djsasso (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --vector ^_^ (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - No worries. SimonKSK 12:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 02:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Ueber Strong Support - Oh for pity's sake - stop faffing around with your stupid !vote changes and stop jumping on bandwaggons! I trust Mentifisto fully with the tools, and he is quite obviously not going to abuse them. So what if he doesn't participate in discussions? There is more to a wiki than a lot of what is pointless discussion. Remember, we're here to build an encyclopedia, not a new Facebook... I seem to remember also in my first RfA I had too many Wikipedia space contribs... COME ON! Seriously guys, pull your fingers out, and start acting for yourself. Don't !vote till you are sure of your vote, don't change. Need I go on? Ok, i'm getting off the point now... but yes, our RfA is broken, and we need to fix it... but that's for another place. Good luck Mentifisto! Goblin 11:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Part of the point of Rfa is to discuss positions and to change your position if someone has a stronger argument than you. So changing your vote is actually expected to happen. (Though I try not to do it much). To not change your vote if someone came along with a stronger position would actually mean that Rfa was broken, not the other way around. -Djsasso (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support 79.207.172.71 (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC) (Forgot to log in, sorry) The life of brian (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. You have got to be kidding me. Good grief, yes =).-- Tdxiang 14:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Weak oppose - I am rather concerned with the low number of contributions to the Wikipedia namespace. Pages in the Wikipedia namespace are the core of various community discussions. While I do not question your ability to participate in discussions, I feel that an administrator-to-be should be more active in this particular field first. Chenzw  Talk  07:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sorry I must agree with Chenzw. his stats show that he has not been very active in community discussions. NotGiven 14:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. More time needed I think. The first nominator points out three good VIP reports. These are his only reports. His deleted contributions are sparse and there are fewer than 30 QD requests. I'd prefer more interaction from him with the community. Majorly talk 14:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I know those were his only reports. By "good", I wasn't meaning it to be "here's the best of his VIP reports", I was using it as an adjective, and saying that his VIP reports have been good. American Eagle (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak Oppose I hate to change votes, but Chenzw and Majorly do bring up good points. I would prefer to see more community interaction. -Djsasso (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak oppose nearly all of the candidate's contributions are automated. I want to know more about the user other than their ability to press a button. Would support if more manual editing occurred Soup Dish (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, honestly, if I can fix typos easily using a program why would I otherwise choose to correct them manually? If automation is so detestable why are we using computers in the first place to host this wiki, as well? Just thinking... -- Mentifisto 18:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But your edits are bot related or semi-automatic. I think the community want to see more "normal" edits. Barras (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think what he is getting at is to see more article building than just typo fixing. -Djsasso (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak oppose due to Majorly and Chenzw's points. Razorflame 17:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose While I don't detest automated edits–far from it–the other opposers bring up a valid point. A look at Special:Contributions/Mentifisto for the Wikipedia namespace shows mostly a contribution to the RfA space. There are a few edits to your editor review (your own), a few reports to ViP, and a request for rollback. There are only four posts showing community interaction. Sorry, such little communication with a community in which you're becoming a sysop on is not what I would look for. (And, this is my opinion, so don't jump at me for it.) Hopefully this will be a support next time. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regretful Oppose I think you need more contribs to the WP namespace. Sorry. :-( Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 10:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - I had a look at the pages he has created as listed on his Userpage and they are all stubs. I would expect an admin to have made some major contributions to our articles. Not ready at this time, though please nominate again. --Peterdownunder (talk) 05:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Peterdownunder, you oppose Mentifisto because his articles are generally stubs (even though he has written over 30 nice articles, such as Tabula rasa), yet you support EVula who has never written a Simple English Wikipedia article in his/her life? Mentifisto will be an excellent administrator, and has double the mainspace edits of EVula. This is a faulty oppose at best. American Eagle (talk) 06:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Category