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

Mentifisto (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes)

RfCU of Mentifisto
global contribs · pie chart · edit count · list user · blocklog ·contribs · deleted blocks · protects · deletes · moves · rights
Last comment by: ShakespeareFan00.

This request has passed because the applicant has attained 25 votes. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I'm here today to nominate Mentifisto (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes) for checkusership here on simple. Mentifisto is a global sysop and rollbacker who is regularly globally active fighting vandalism, but he's also an active admin here on simple. Mentifisto is very often around, not only on-wiki, but also on IRC and can so be reached very easy either way. Mentifisto surely has the technical knowledge about IPs all-around and is surely able to answer all your questions. He's over 18 as required for this tool and also identified to the WMF. I know we already have several checkusers, but no one of us can be always around. I think the additional flag would be very helpful for him and the whole community to fight vandalism and to look for socks, which we actually have more than enough. I hope that the community feels like me. Good luck! -Barras (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: I accept and thank Barras for the nomination. If the community so desires I will strive to serve the project's best interests and be active in this capacity whenever possible. -- Mentifisto 17:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. -Barras (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. --« Erin » 18:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Yottie ^=talk= 16:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. - Normandie ^Talk! 11:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. From what I've seen he just quietly does his work as an admin around here --Chemicalinterest (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Looks good to me. —mc10 (u|t|c) 07:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. I have thought quite a bit about what to say here. Gordon has quite rightly asked for comments from current CUs so I'll give my full reasoning. The Simple English Wikipedia is a prime target for disruption due to our language being English. We get quite a few of the same vandals and sockpuppets that enwiki does because of this. This also means that a LOT of checkusers get done per day/week/month. Not all of the checkusers actually actively use the tool however. For quite some time it was basically Brain, James and me doing 95%+ of the CUs. I'm not as active currently due to a prior commitment and we lost James due to him becoming employed by the WMF. Barras is now actively performing CUs and TRM does some as do I. This leaves us with only 2 active CUs rather than the usual 3. This will become 3 and 4 when I get done with my commitment. So the question becomes do we need another active CU at this time. I think we need at least 3 active CUs so yes. About Mentifito's past comments, I've dealt with those below. I will add that it is no secret that Mentifisto wants to become a steward, he ran last time and almost made it. But, so what if he does want steward? Lot's of people do on just about every project in WMFland. Is Mentifisto's request to become a CU part of this; maybe, but so what again? I'm sure lots of people have made strategic moves prior to running for a flag. I know he'll actively use the tool and it makes sense to get some experience with the CU interface because stewards perform lots of them also and CU is on many voter's lists of criteria for a steward to have experience in prior to running. This might deter some from supporting it might not, but I also know I can trust him as a checkuser. I've had occasions where I've had to work with Mentifisto on delicate admin/CU situations and have never worried about trusting him. I also know that he understands the technical and policy aspects of CU. And lastly I know that if he sees a CU that shouldn't have been done or an action that needs querying he'll do so. As such I support his nomination. fr33kman 08:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Hell yes :) —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? 09:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support-- Tdxiang 05:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. Answers to the questions look good - it's obvious this is a good candidate who knows what they're doing. Kansan (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support I wholly agree we need more active CheckUsers and I think this may be a good candidate. --Bsadowski1 22:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. I waited for three CUs to comment because they are a team, and they need to work together. I trust Mentifisto, and if the team thinks he will be a good addition I don't see an issue. Just as a note, some may be wondering why I didn't put so much caution into Kansan's request for oversighter. Oversight is still a sensitive tool, and there needs to be teamwork, however the CUs often bounce the results of checks off each other helping each other come to tough decisions as there is often gray areas in the technical info. Oversight is simply follow the guidelines, and hide what needs to be hidden. Teamwork is a factor, but not as largely as with CU. Thanks for offering your services!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    How did you know we all talk?! :) Who snitched?!? But seriously folks, Gordon has hit on a significant "feature" of CU. We do not and can not work in solo. A lot of CU results (not all by any stretch) are shared amongst all of the WMF CU, globally. We often work as a team to defeat people who really do want to harm WMF projects. I'll also say, again, that being active is what matters most with CUers because even an absence of two weeks can set a CU back "ages and ages" in their knowledge of the current state of global (&local) sockers/vandals. fr33kman 01:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

13. Per fr33kman's comments. wiooiw (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. Exert 02:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support Grunny (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Fr33kman explained it so well and persuasively; I really am convinced that one more CU is necessary here. I'm also supporting because I trust Gordon's opinion and wise cautiousness to have lead to the right side of the vote. ♥ingly, Bella ^{tête-à-tête} 07:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Mentifisto is a very helpful user on simple and a great global admin that would add to the activity of checkusers on simple wikipedia. I don't see why a redundancy of those holding checkuser status would be an issue here because not everyone of them shares the same level of activity. I don't think Mentifisto is trying to request checkusership because of the steward election, he's just trying to help the editors here. Nifky^{^} 01:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18. The current CUs have agreed that another checkuser will be helpful, and Mentifisto is trusted, so it's fine with me. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
19. --vector ^_^ (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support - Checkuser is not a simple task, and there is quite a steep learning curve. I think another person on the team would assist us all. I believe that Mentifesto would do a good job.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
21. Goblin 10:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]
22. // fetchcomms ~ talk 00:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
23. --Mercy (talk) 10:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
24. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
25. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 04:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Can't support a user who has previously indicated he collects flags for the sole purpose of getting Stewardship. That combined with his disappearing for great periods of time to basically come back when its close to stewards election's indicates to me he has no real interest in this community. That combined with my lack of trust and his generally insulting comments he has made towards people such as his making fun of Jamesofur for being dyslexic mean I can't support this request. -DJSasso (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm sorry, but I never indicated any such thing - I do not 'collect' flags for any reason other than utility; I'm active wherever I was active most of my time here (from around the beginning of 2009, mostly). I haven't 'disappeared', but I was busier during summer, though I still strived to make at least the weekly edit.

   I also never made fun of anyone - I apologize if that's how you felt, but as I assured you in the past, it must have been some kind of miscommunication. -- Mentifisto 23:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Dear DJSasso, would you be so kind as to show us the diff where you felt that Mentifesto made "fun of Jamesofur"? I honestly don't mean to badger you: I'm still thinking carefully whether I should support or not, and I would very much like to see that comment; it would help me a lot in making my decision, and I'm pretty sure others would wish to see it as well. Very best, —Clementina talk 05:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Would be unable to do so as he did it on IRC. However, if you go to the Steward elections on Meta from earlier this year it came up there. He has admitted that he said it in the past, but claims it was a joke now. He has also said it in PMs to freakman which can be seen on the meta link. -DJSasso (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Yep, Mentifisto did say that stuff, but I personally think it's not something that bears on these proceedings overly. When he brought up James' spelling issues (not knowing James is dyslexic) it was within the general context of linguistics and stewardship. Spelling errors are a bit like fingernails on a chalk-board for some people; I can understand because when I write I make them all the time and they drive me nuts also. At the time the incident occurred I was fairly upset by it, but a lot of time has passed and I really think that Mentifisto has changed a great deal in the last year. Since that incident, I have never seen Mentifisto comment or chide someone over their spelling mistakes in discussions. As for "hat collecting", yes I can see the argument, but just playing devil's advocate I can also see how someone else could see it as going after and gaining more responsibility and experience. fr33kman 03:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I think it very much bears on this. To be a CU you have to show a certain amount of maturity and knowledge of when to say something and when not to say something. If he couldn't figure out that saying such things was bad, then he is both lacking in maturity and lacking in the ability to decide when is appropriate to say something. Which is extremely important for the role of checkuser due to the confidentiality of the information that have to handle and possibly pass on if it meets the right criteria for doing so. -DJSasso (talk) 11:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   You've got a point, but I also think he's grown and matured since. He's rounded out a great deal imo. fr33kman 11:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Strong oppose Being a global admin is very stressful already. Doing this will make him have to do even more work. Besides, we don't need so many CheckUsers, checking someone's IP address is a sensitive issue to me. Hydriz (talk) 08:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   It is an abuse of checkuser privileges to check the IP of a good-standing user just to see if s/he has a vandalizing or sockpuppeting IP address. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 12:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   We have two active CUs which is not enough. Also, I'm a global sysop and find the time to be active on CUs, but ok :) (it's not that stressful btw) fr33kman 09:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. Per DJ. Haven't seen him around as much as I would expect him to, especially in the areas I'm interested in Purplebackpack89 05:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   You oppose him as he isn't active in the same areas as you? Normandie ^Talk! 10:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I have commented on a great variety of issues in the past, say, year, and I can't remember the last time he and I commented on the same thread. That suggests a level of activity too low to warrant CU. Also, looking at his contribs, I see several periods of inactivity within the last six months Purplebackpack89 17:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What additional responsibilities do checkusers have?

• What is an example of an appropriate and an inappropriate time to run a checkuser? Kansan (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional responsibilities include safeguarding the wiki against potential sockpuppeting that attempts to exert illegitimate influence (votestacking etc.) or serial vandals (to pre-empt possible sockfarms). This is all done within set policies that control usage, as exemplified below:
• An example of appropriate use is when (blatantly bad faith) attack accounts need to have their IPs blocked, to prevent further creation of vandalistic accounts; usage should be limited only to circumstances where there is sufficient evidence of a threat, and not simply for fishing. It's used inappropriately (and abusively) if e.g. it's run against established (or otherwise well-intentioned) users without good cause (vague evidence etc.) -- Mentifisto 22:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know about other people, but I would feel more comfortable voting in this request if more current checkuers would comment with their thoughts first. So... please comment!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  ^ your wish, my command. Hopefully other CUs will comment also. fr33kman 08:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.