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

Mentifisto[edit]

Nomination[edit]

Voice your opinion (talk page) (66/16/9); Scheduled to end 23:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Mentifisto (talk · contribs) – Mentifisto has been around on Wikipedia longer than I have, and in this time has been a valuable help to the project. He's not one to take an active role in writing articles (much like myself) but acts more like a wikignome, running around behind the scenes cleaning things up as needed. His contributions will show you that he's an avid vandal fighter, and those administrators among you will note that he has an exceptional record at tagging articles for speedy deletion. While his WP:RFPP requests are infrequent, they're usually on the ball; in the two recent instances where his requests were not accepted, the vandals on one page were blocked, and the second page was protected three days later for the same reason Mentifisto requested.

I personally began regularly encountering Mentifisto in our efforts to help out new users - Mentifisto is a frequent participant in the #wikipedia-en-help channel, helping others and also asking for advice himself. Mentifisto also helps out a lot on-wiki at the Help Desk for the same purpose. I've seen him be a great help to other editors and always open to advice and criticism himself, something very important for a prospective administrator.

In reviewing his edits, you'll probably notice that there's a year-long gap in Mentifisto's contributions; to fill that gap, I'd recommend you check out his alternate account, Mentisock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - apparently Mentifisto was unable to access the internet for some time except through the public library. Despite this, he managed to make over 3,000 edits on that account. I see this as a sign of a great sense of dedication to the Wiki, and that coupled with Mentifisto's other work here makes me wholeheartedly believe that he would be a very valuable addition to the project as an administrator. Mentifisto, best of luck to you. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept and would like to thank Hersfold sincerely for the trust given to me.
Ever since I started delving into what Wikipedia really is I've become increasingly attached to it and the more I learn about it the more I want to contribute as much as possible, however I can, with my limitations. I intend to ask the general community for the trust that could enable me to do more efficiently, now; I'd like to maximize my potential for contributing. -- Mentifisto 17:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I'd like to help with the constant AIV and CSD backlogs firstly since I think I already have extensive experience primarily in the respective areas and they always need a helping hand (as opposed to just piling on to their work). I'd also like to be able to help more users with specific queries and mend trivial errors such as this without having to bother other people. I will be prudent with anything else that I'm not currently versed in (like I try to be with anything) and rationally cautious if I try to help with other things, continually learning in time.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: As Hersfold explicated it, I think the collective element of my contributions is satisfying. I'm a gnome at heart (the most I did at article writing so far was Adolph Diesterweg, which was just approved for DYK) so I like doing the little things that continue to perfect WP, from typo corrections to the fixing of technical errors (like wikimarkup), welcoming new users (especially those with sensible contributions) and helping people, wikifying articles and emptying the short pages list, reverting vandalism and patrolling new pages.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Like anyone else, to a certain degree. One I had in the past was based on misunderstanding but I tried to communicate clearly and effectively representing my motive and it was resolved. I really try to not get involved emotionally - that's not logical in my opinion, remaining calm and moderate. I consider what someone else is saying and try to fully understand it, if I don't I ask questions and afterwards try to convey my view ideally culminating in a compromise and resolution.
Questions from Majorly talk
4. You do realise it is inappropriate to edit others' comments? Majorly talk 23:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A: I do but that was only fixing typos to make it more understandable; I didn't change the wording or even grammar. I'm sure I corrected them as intended. -- Mentifisto 23:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just so you know: usre is the British version of "user" and thus, is not a typo :) Cheers. I'mperator 14:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since when? Majorly talk 17:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Err...since some time ago? Cheers. I'mperator 19:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, bugger. A mistake on my part. I must go back to England some day...Cheers. I'mperator 20:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q's from flaminglawyer

5. What is your opinion on the recent surge of RfA candidates?
A. Well, it could be statistical randomness since I don't suppose it's linked to a specific time or month. Or, maybe, they feel like they've reached that certain required point simultaneously.
6. If your RfA were to succeed, who would you tell in real life?
A. Well... that depends on whether I got one. :-) Wikipedia also engrosses most of my time so that solves itself. -- Mentifisto 00:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from JustGettingItRight (talk):

7. This is a "case study" question. I am a newly registered editor and I attempt to refute the theory of Evolution by editing the Evolution article. My sources come from Answers in Genesis, which I believe to be rock-solid sources on par with your secular "peer-reviewed" journals, which I personally view to have a closed shop bias. Immediately after I make my first edit, my edit is reverted in a very impersonal way. Not knowing the 3RR rule, I edit again in an attempt to insert what is factual information showing scientific dispute against evolution (this is what I believe anyways). After my fourth revert, I get a message from one editor on my talk page to quit disrupting Wikipedia by adding pseudoscientific information and I'm in violation of 3RR. I now perceive Wikipedia to be a bullying cabal of meanies and you get some sense of my frustration in my responses to complaints. You receive a complaint about my behavior, specifically I'm disrupting the Evolution page and I violated 3RR. How would you handle this situation? JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A. Well, first, after reviewing all the edits and history concerned, I'd explain what 3RR concerns and the value of discussing (possibly controversial) changes on the talk page first (I'll explain about talk pages as well if required) especially after the first revert. I'll try to initiate a discussion among the article's editors in the hope of reaching consensus (which I'd also say is the way compromise is attained on a wiki) and if necessary point you to the reliable sources noticeboard in order to get general input from people with experience in RS. I would also drop a note to the person who reverted the edits impersonally (by implication didn't leave a comment on the user talk page explaining the reason for the revert, which isn't at all appropriate) asking them to do so next time because edit wars (a concept I'd also explain to be fundamental to 3RR) could be triggered through such negligence. Ultimately I'd recommend third party mediation if mine doesn't resolve the dispute.
If you then continue to edit ignoring all other comments I'd ask you not to until it's fully resolved; if you persist and wage an edit war still, breaking 3RR after it was already clearly explained, I'd block you. -- Mentifisto 08:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questions from George The Dragon
8 What do you think is most important for Wikipedia. Being an encyclopaedia or being something everyone can edit?
A. Since it is both really it won't do without one or another. It is an encyclopedia first and foremost but I think it needs to retain the openness of editing as much as possible or it won't continue to progress (especially with a similar exponential rate) like it did since its nascency. I also think there's no such thing as good knowledge if the process is closed, so being something everyone can edit is at the very core of Wikipedia's ideals. -- Mentifisto 19:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question from hmwithτ
9 Now that you realize that editing others' talk page comments to correct spelling or grammar without their permission is considered poor etiquette and goes against Wikipedia guidelines, per WP:Talk#Others' comments and WP:Etiquette#How to avoid abuse of talk pages, will you refrain from doing this in future?
A. Certainly, if the majority of people think that it's preferable that way. I'll make sure to inform the users in the future. -- Mentifisto 20:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: While you may believe that editing others' comments is acceptable, to many people it comes across as condescending and haughty, and simultaneously risks altering the message if you misinterpret what the other editor was trying to say. You said "certainly" above when asked if you would refrain in the future, but then qualified it with "I'll make sure to inform the users in the future." I'd like to be crystal clear here: given the many problems that arise from editing others' comments, not to mention that it goes against the letter of our guidelines, will you cease this practice from here on in completely? GlassCobra 16:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will cease. (By "making sure to inform the users" I meant notifying them of the typos so they'd correct them, if they're egregious.) -- Mentifisto 16:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from User:Carlossuarez46
10a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and ((underconstruction)), and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?
A: I would wait from hours to days as it could depend on the creator (if they edit, if they're responsive etc.) after notifying them and watchlisting the article; I could also move it into userspace and leave a note saying so. I would delete it under the CSD A3 criterion if it's left for a substantial amount of time.
10b. Is your view of consensus at deletion discussions different than your view of consensus in article writing - or is majority rule more appropos with respect to the latter?
A: It depends on the rationales offered. A steady evolution of arguments as regards the latter decides whether a piece of writing remains or not. Consensus at deletion discussions is also decided by the best arguments as to the article inclusion as a whole but it could have more input.
10c. What is your philosophy about admin involvement in content disputes?
A: I think admins should act as middlemen in disputes; taking no sides and deciding based on policy and consensus. If they have a dispute themselves then other people who have no conflict of interest should mediate. This is also similar to a specific scenario such as Q7.
10d. Are all sources either reliable or not reliable or is there a middle ground, and if so can sources in that middle ground be used?
A: There's always degrees of reliability with sources as they are also relative to the context; sources can be used in order of scrutinization and the ones with less reliability should be used in trivial cases. Ultimately discussion decides whether some sources should be used or not. -- Mentifisto 03:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from User:Staffwaterboy
11.What would you plan of action be if you or another user suspected another account to be a sockpuppet,Please Tell me you plan of action and the steps that you would take in regards to such incidents?
A: If they are suspected of having sockpuppets and I'd have evidence of that I'd report it to WP:SPI. I'd try to gather evidence after a suspicion by checking the diffs in comparison with the accounts and the article history, the times they edited at (if it was a short while between edits etc.) and account creation times, the articles they edited (if they were similar in nature) and even similarities in the usernames.
12.Off the book question what is your opinion about flag revision? I personalty am very neutral about the it.
A: I think it's perhaps the attempt at seeking a requisite solution for an old problem. It may possibly make WP slower at growing, but yes I understand that some see it as a necessity. -- Mentifisto 03:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 17:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from User:Letsdrinktea
13. Please explain your view on deletion versus inclusion.
A: As I see it deletion is an evil necessity when the articles clearly don't meet inclusion policy, which is there to regulate encyclopedic content and prevent the creation of articles that don't meet certain criteria. It should be decided on a case-by-case basis though.
14. A user creates a page with the following text: Bajsmannen är en sjukdom som oftast drabbas emos som rakar av håret. Man fryser även lättare när man är drabbad av Bajsmannen. Personer som sovit 7 timmar sen onsdags brukar oftast få finnar och diarrè. What CSD criterion, if any, does this fall under?
A: It could possibly fit under A2 but I usually use ((notenglish)); if I suspect that the article as it is probably doesn't meet inclusion guidelines or is made in bad faith (as that one is) I'll try to roughly translate it automatically. -- Mentifisto 03:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from User:Lankiveil
A: As per strict policies the admin wasn't justified because there was no bad faith and the user didn't breach consensus (although it could be possible that the admin tried to prevent people becoming upset by blocking beforehand, albeit hastily) but if anything it should have a wider hearing so I would start a discussion on AN/I and leave a note on the admin's talk page. -- Mentifisto 05:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questions from User:Vindrisk
A: I think that's in most cases unnecessary discrimination but then again, by implication, encyclopedias in general shouldn't be cited primarily and instead the original sources used.
A: I always tried to correct the misconceptions some people have over the real purpose of WP even in the past, and, I presume, I will continue to do so. -- Mentifisto 22:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Mentifisto before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

(Moved from questions section.) I don't find Majorly's concern to be a big deal. Menti was only fixing the spelling and didn't change the idea of the overall comment. It actually should be considered to be a "plus" since it improves the overall readability of the comments. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. It was a positive change; not like changing the meaning at all. I wish more people would do it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it might be fair to say that it reflects a non-conversance with policy and practice, which is not a quality one is eager to find in a prospective admin. Certainly there is a much broader record on which to rest conclusions about the candidate's knowledge of important policies, those that might be relevant to adminship, and I don't propose that I would oppose on this basis—in fact, I will probably support here—but I must confess to being a bit surprised to find that someone who has been here so long was apparently unaware of what I understood to be (rightly or wrongly) a universally accepted norm (and to worrying at least a very small bit about the ability to appreciate the concerns of others of a user who edits even non-substantively the comments of another, an action that, whatever its constructive quality and the good intentions that underlie it, is likelier than not to irk the user whose comments are edited, such that its net effect is likely to be negative). Joe 21:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to say here what I said in Q9 above that I won't edit others' comments like I did here anymore. Please, excuse me; it was my mistake and I genuinely thought I was helping but I won't do it again, I promise. -- Mentifisto 00:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]
  1. Support I accept that we have many anti-vandal Admins already, but we still need far, far more. Vandalism and innapropriate pages remain a real problem on Wikipæpedia. Spacevezon (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support I've seen Mentifisto reverting vandalism a lot. He really deserves adminship and will use the tools well. -download | sign! 23:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support - We need more anti-vandalism admins. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, my support rationale at Camw's RfA applies here, as well. I should really write an essay on this someday... –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support — Jake Wartenberg 23:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong support as nominator Best of luck! Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - I'm surprised he isn't an admin already. I have seen numerous positive contributions to the project from this user and I'm sure he would be a great administrator as well. Camw (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Very strong support Can be trusted with the tools, I have no problems about giving the tools to this user. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 23:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Is this one of those reconfirmation RFAs? :) Good luck.--Giants27 T/C 23:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, has an obvious need for the tools. Suitable personality and sufficent experience. Icewedge (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Very strong support (after two edit conflicts) — The fact that Mentifisto is not an administrator yet is in itself a negative to the project. Quite simply, Wikipedia needs to give the mop to this editor. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Positive contributions, will strongly benefit from the tools. Xclamation point 23:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 00:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - per Julian. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 02:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Likes a candidate that exercises WP:BOLD without being over the wall by improving the overall readability of comments via fixing typos. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support: He will gratify many wikipedians. South Bay (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I can't remember a negative interaction with this user. I've seen him around at the Help Desk and was impressed when (he? she?) asked a question and also took time to respond to a few. Helpfulness like that is a great trait. TNXMan 03:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Becoming an admin is"No Big Deal". NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 03:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - thought he already was one - Fastily (talk) 03:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong support Wizardman 03:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support: Have seen the user responsibly Huggling several times. Good luck - just don't correct my grammar! Law shoot! 03:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support I see from your contributions and how you answer these questions that you'll make a great admin! Basket of Puppies 03:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. bibliomaniac15 05:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Trusted. MBisanz talk 05:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Moved from oppose; concerns allayed. Useight (talk) 06:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. A great and dedicated editor that will make a great admin.--Berig (talk) 08:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Isn't already? support And, go gnomes! --GedUK  11:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - I see no reason why not. Speedy work is fine (which is, as usual, what I look at first ;-)). I do advise you to take Q4 and the oppose by Caspian Blue to heart and do not edit other people's comments and try to be more careful when posting such opinions. I am though convinced you will do that, so it's nothing to stop me from supporting. Regards SoWhy 13:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Clean block logs, plenty of experience and no concerns from user and talk pages. Plus I find the opposes unconvincing. WereSpielChequers 13:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. I like the idea that someone will help take care of the AIV and CSD backlogs. I've fun come across this user in passing several times and have no issue with sysop status. I was also impressed with the answer to question 7, where it would have been very easy for the user to take a side instead of remaining neutral. KuyaBriBriTalk 14:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Great editor, however, I have to agree with Ottava below. LittleMountain5 review! 21:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support A trust editor. All that I needed was Mentifisto's word that he/she wouldn't refactor others' comments. Thanks for the quick response, hmwithτ 21:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Looks good. RayTalk 23:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support From all that I've seen - he does good work...Modernist (talk) 00:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Superb work; adminship will only help the project, so why the bloody hell not? Cheers. I'mperator 00:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support A user who has demonstrated a commitment to improving Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support- I see no reason not to trust this user with the mop. Reyk YO! 06:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Good luck. America69 (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support, a review of contributions has thrown up absolutely nothing that concerns me and a lot to recommend you; generally very good work with Huggle and elsewhere. I do not find any of the opposes particularly convincing to me, problem incidents mostly seem very minor and/or isolated, and I remain very skeptical of requiring content contributions from our admin candidates. For me, substantial contributions in some form to the overall reliability, stability and/or comprehensiveness of Wikipedia is enough of a demonstration of good intentions. Widespread and competent anti-vandalism work assuredly demonstrates this. ~ mazca t|c 19:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support, as a Huggler myself, I have no problem with anti-vandal admins. I have seen no issues with you becoming an admin, except for the Caspian Blue incident, but I believe that that won't happen again. Thanks, Genius101Guestbook 20:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, editor that assumes good faith most of the time, and is a big help on huggle and in other areas, I think the user is ready for the admin tools. :) Best, Versus22 talk 23:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Great editor, thoughtful answers, and diligent anti-vandal fighting. As I've said before, clueful admins who predominately use Huggle and/or vandal-fight I view as total assets to the project. FlyingToaster 00:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. While I have seen you around the wiki and know your edits to be high quality, I will caution you that people will be very offended when an administrator edits their comments. I would discontinue this practice immediately--though I am sure there is no sinister motive here. Other than this, I have no problems with Mentifisto becoming an administrator. Malinaccier (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support spotty activity, not much article building, but very strong vandal fighting. The editing of others comments ... BIG NO-NO ...BAD! The bottom line though is - I believe he takes this don't do it anymore advice seriously, and I believe that he'll restrain himself in the future. Give him a mop, and let him take out the trash. — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 06:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC) PS - don't ever edit my comments - make your own to address my faults (of which there are many). — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 06:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support LetsdrinkTea 15:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Weak support switch from neutral after assuring that Mentifisto will not be editing other's comments. Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Sure.  GARDEN  20:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support I like this guy. shirulashem (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Someone's got to hold the vandals at bay, and I'm particularly impressed with the helpdesk participation. Shows a good attitude to Wikipedia.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 02:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Seems fine. GlassCobra 03:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strong Support If only because with more tools at Mentifisto's disposal, I should be able to get more edits in on Huggle rather than always being beaten. On a serious note, edits have always seemed to be correct, or corrected if they're initially incorrect. When I speak with people in my life about WP, I ask them to tell me how often they actually see vandalism, and they respond that it's not very often. I take that as a sign that editors like Mentifisto are performing a valuable service, because as any experienced user knows, vandalism is rampant. This is a well-deserved nomination, and I look forward to its passage. GnoworTalk2Medid wha? 03:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support, good answer to Q15. No evidence user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  53. Support,Will make a great admin good luck Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 20:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support A wonderful person, who will make a great admin, and is always a help -- even when what I'm asking for help on isn't by rights part of this project in the first place. Great attitude that we need to see more of around Wikipedia. As well, it's good to see people getting nominated who work on vandalism, and the year of edits from public computers is certainly impressive as heck. --Neskaya talk 20:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support The supporters are many, and specific, and emphatic. There are no diffs in the oppose section that counter anything the supporters are saying. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ..."in your belief". The opposers are many, and specific, and emphatic. There are "manysome diffs" in the oppose section that counter something (eg. altering others' edits, lack of content building, some incivility). I don't mean to be sarcastic, but your assertive comment completely rejects the other side of the candidate's contribution and the shown evidences, or others assessments.--Caspian blue 14:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant that literally, not as a value judgment ... there is not a single diff related to the candidate among the still-standing oppose votes, did I miss one? Where we may have disconnected, Caspian, is that I skipped over your vote because it seems to be stricken ... I always skip over votes that have been changed, at RFA and elsewhere, on the theory that, if the voter struck that vote, that probably means they don't want me to read that rationale. I'll be happy to read it if that's still your position. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not only talking about my previous vote (a different thing from you is that I tend to weigh in and read all comments in Oppose and Neutral sections even though some are struck because I wonder what makes them change their stance). Aside from my opinion, a lack of content building and altering comments of others is evident, but your comment denies the assessment, and even insinuates the opposers saying "untruth".--Caspian blue 15:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason why I'm replying to you is because I feel some responsibility for my provided diff that several voters quote even though I changed my stance (actually, that withdrawal is more like a respect to the nominator).--Caspian blue 15:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The eternal struggle in RFAs is how much to say; I guess this time I didn't say enough (for once :) Right, your diff was useful. And not providing diffs doesn't make an opposer wrong or the vote invalid; I believe exactly the opposite. It just means that it's more work to verify what they're saying. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Alighty, we're good now. =) --Caspian blue 16:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support: Mentifisto seems to have the experience, knowledge and temperament necessary to be good admin. Deli nk (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Yes, experience, knowledge, and temperament are all there. Timmeh! 01:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support – WP:WTHN? Am I right? — RyanCross (talk) 03:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Candidate looks good, and the opposes tend to be stretching for reasons on why to do so. Nja247 07:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you care to clarify what you mean by "stretching for reasons on why to do so"? Killiondude (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support per Juliancolton. The tools would likely be a great aid to MF, and would help him extend his reach in the areas of vandal-fighting. →Dyl@n620 10:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - good candidate who needs the tools, and would not abuse them. Not convinced by the arguments given in the Oppose section - we should not stop a potentially useful vandal-fighter from getting the tools because they haven't contributed enough articles. Robofish (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support No problems here. Mentifisto will use the tools appropriately and will use them for the benefit of the English Wikipedia. Good luck in the future! Razorflame 17:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support I don't think you will break the wiki, but I would encourage you to ease yourself into adminship slowly, and don't try to do everything all at once. J.delanoygabsadds 18:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. A great vandal-fighter who's beaten me to quite a few reverts. He has contributed enough content to satisfy me (a DYK) when combined with his impressive record elsewhere. Also, editing others comments is a breach of etiquette, but it's not egregious and I don't think he'll do it again. Cool3 (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. No question. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 05:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. I've only seen good things from Mentifisto. Acalamari 19:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support iMatthew // talk // 19:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose After looking at this candidate's contributions, I do not feel comfortable with him having the tools because he seems to rely on Huggle a great deal. Less than 3.4% of candidates edits on this account have been to the Wikispace, which for me means that he might make a mistake in mis-tagging something with the autotool and may not be familiar enough with the policies in the areas candidate wishes to work in. ArcAngel (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you sure you commented on the right user? Mentifisto has nearly half of his edits to mainspace... Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) 47.60% of this user's contributions are in the mainspace. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I am confused on the terminology then. I thought the mainspace referred to pages in the Wiki space, such as this page here. ArcAngel (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they do not. Majorly talk 23:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose because of our sweet first encounter just a week ago. According to his "eloquent" message (sudden personal attack), I am an ageist worst than being a sexist. Thankfully, due to his visit, I saved my time looking through his contribution for this RFA. The candidate may be a good "huggler" to some but far from a content builder with good communication skills. On his most edited article, he has just edited "11 times" and were just reverting vandalism. Although he apolozised to me about 26 hours past[1], if I were him, I would've waited this RFA for at least one month after that. Good luck--Caspian blue 23:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I really didn't intend it as that. I was actually just thinking loudly... about the concepts, not you. I was actually just curious about what you thought (thus, the questions), not trying to insult you. -- Mentifisto 23:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That does not add up. If you were really curious about my opinion on ageism, you'd come to talk me right after then? You knew I took offense at your "attack" Between the times, you were doing other many many things.--Caspian blue 00:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I just didn't want to risk committing a similar faux pas again possibly enraging you further. -- Mentifisto 00:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, well, you made me remain furious for the day long. You should've come much earlier and said "I'm sorry". You would be highly unlikely a mean person, but timing is very important. When I first saw this RfA opening, I'm somewhat surprised that you did not even consider your comment to me could be disadvantageous for your own RFA. That seems like a sign of your lack of judgment.--Caspian blue 02:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may butt in for a moment, that was partially my fault. When I nominated Mentifisto, I'd totally forgotten about this incident. I was somewhat involved in it, because after you reacted to Mentifisto's comment, he made a point of seeking me out on IRC to ask for advice and what I thought of the comment. I told him that while I could understand he didn't intend to be offensive with it, it was definitely clear how it could have been interpreted as you had. As I gave advice to Mentifisto, he was very open to the comments I had to make and was genuinely concerned that he had severely offended you. I'm not saying this was handled perfectly, however I do definitely feel that he is learning from this, in such a way that would prove very valuable were he to be involved in something even more controversial. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the comment, Hersfold. I switch to Neutral.--Caspian blue 04:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Oppose, but with possibility of switching to support. It takes more than two months of Huggling to get a support from me, as Huggling does not demonstrate the traits I desire to see in administrators. This, coupled with the interaction with Caspian, lead me to oppose. Useight (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Moved to support. [reply]
    I've done all kinds of things last year with User:Mentisock... huggling itself did begin two months ago but I did other things before. And, honestly... I intended Caspian's questions to be purely academic inquiry... I didn't think they were malicious... only for informational purposes. -- Mentifisto 01:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, RfA is supposed to be a review of this candidate. Do you have any reason related to Mentifisto to oppose his adminship? Also, I moved your comment down here as it's standard to keep posts in chronological order. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe the community is looking for more admins, so I oppose the addition of more. It's all about what we beleive the community is looking for. Please read Wikipedia:Requests for adminship for clarification. DougsTech (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, what "the community is looking for" is determined by processes we have, like RfA, RfC or AfD... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 02:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fully aware of policy, thank you, and I don't see anything to support your position. So, to clarify, you are simply blanket opposing any candidate regardless of their qualifications, despite the fact we are currently going through a much higher-than-average rate of administrators leaving the project? If this is the case, I'm sure the bureaucrat closing the case will weight your argument appropriately, as they have with previous arguments of this nature. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for reading the policy. As you have read, it is the bureaucrat's decision based on the OPINIONS of the community. The bureaucrat will determine what the community is looking for based on this process. As you see here [2] there are very many administrators. You can see how editors are considered for adminship if you read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship DougsTech (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you missed the bit in the policy that said bureaucrats may discount these opinions when they have no bearing on the candidate's qualifications. By the way, don't quote policy at me; it's somewhat rude to assume that the person you're talking to doesn't know what they're talking about when it's essentially their job onwiki to do so. Anyway, I'm not going to argue this further as there is no point to it; if you're not going to change your mind, I won't rush my onset of carpal tunnel syndrome. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OPINIONS, are what decides the RfA. The bureaucrat may discount any opinion, both yours and mine. DougsTech (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of RfA. We're here to decide if we can trust this individual editor with the tools. Discussion about whether or not we need more admins is irrelevant to this page, and should be discussed elsewhere. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey DougsTech. I know having over 1500 admins seems like enough but it's nowhere near it. Only about 900 are active, and though they can settle backlogs etc fairly quickly, that's a tiny number. Our article count and userbase has significantly outgrown our admin count (Gone from a ratio of about 1:0.01 originally to about 1:0.0006). Basically, we need more admins. You should also note that there is more than one bureaucrat (They're are actually quite a few), and that they interpret community consensus, not their own common sense. As you can see there are a lot of objections to your oppose, and as you haven't provided extra reasoning, but have simply argued that you're entitled to your opinion, it will be given very little weight. Thanks! :-)--Pattont/c 16:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment- This is not the place to push your opinion that there are too many admins. It is unfair on the candidate to be opposed on grounds that have nothing whatsoever to do with their ability and temperament. Opposes like this are a violation of WP:POINT because they actually are disruptive. Reyk YO! 06:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Requests for adminship states "Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections." Please read this specific policy before drawing false conclusions. And always WP:AGF DougsTech (talk) 06:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed you are entitled to comment here. But this does not mean your opinion will be treated with the same weight as opinions that are explained clearly, and which actually are applicable to the candidate in question. Reyk YO! 06:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - editing other's comments should be done in only rare and extreme cases. Treating it so trivially shows a mindset that is inappropriate for adminship. The possibility for bad actions is exponentially increased. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't this a wiki though when everything that could be fixed or improved, is? I only 'edit others' comments' rarely - when they obviously could be fixed, and there's no way I'd change an ounce of the sentence's meaning. I don't treat deceptive manipulation of others' comments trivially - in fact it is quite a breach of trust that makes the person deserving of a ban. But there was no margin of error as regards to those typos being corrected, was there? Although even after saying this, if consensus agrees that such edits absolutely shouldn't be made, I won't. -- Mentifisto 06:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an issue of respect. Editing other's comments without permission is a really poor move. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate people making little corrections to my posts. As anyone familiar with me will know, I never learned to type properly, but simply hit the keys really fast, so I often make typos. Correcting it makes it easier to read.--Pattont/c 16:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, its nice for you to give permission after the fact ( :P ), but what if someone didn't feel the same way? And there were two people that were "corrected" in that edit. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We all make mistakes, get things wrong etc. Mentifisto has already said he's going to stop doing this, so I don't see why this should be a concern any more. (Unless you don't trust Mentifisto, in which case I'd like to know why. If someone wasn't trustworthy, then I'd be surprised if they even got this far. ) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 00:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to add that per this, this user has almost no article contributions except huggle. Most of his edits are huggle based. This is problematic. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Speedy oppose per Wikipedia:Five pillars. 141.161.92.138 (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    IP vote indented. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose as I can't support anyone who overuses Huggle. It is really hard to look through your contributions as it is all huggle nonsense. Tavix (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Tavix, Mentifisto has provided a good number of links to sample contributions in question 2, and he does not use Huggle on Mentisock (talk · contribs). Perhaps these would be of some use? Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, Huggle is not nonsense, and to be perfectly honest I'm tired of hearing this at RfA. I've said this many times, and I'll say it again: if nobody ever wrote another article, Wikipedia would remain a useful and comprehensive resource for years, even decades, to come. Without vandal-fighters, Wikipedia would be useless in a matter of days. We need more anti-vandalism admins, as evidenced here, here, etc. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose great at anti-vandal, great person, helpful, but lack of broad experience of editing articles; also some contribs I looked into, stats, and some talk comments that didn't demonstrate exemplary negotiation skills. And admins should be exemplary, right? --  Chzz  ►  07:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - User seems to be a great person, and is great at the stuff they do. I'm not convinced that they have the experience needed to grant adminship though. Based on the user's answer that the most article writing they've done is something from several days ago shows that perhaps they need to spend some more time here--broaden their experience in other aspects. Killiondude (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Minimal content creation. Poor interaction with Caspian Blue. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - The exchange between Mentisto and Caspian Blue worries me. Good communication skills and ability to keep civility are key for admins. Was neutral at first, now I have decided to oppose. FingersOnRoids♫ 18:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - I'm also worried about communication skills, and lack of content work. Dean B (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To FingersOnRoids and Dean B, I'm sorry that my communication skills failed me in that instance but I assure you that I've learned from it. -- Mentifisto 21:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also in respect to the three above posts, Caspian himself has changed his opinion from oppose to neutral - surely this is a sign of improvement? Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose while I'm fine with admins spending time on vandal work and other drudge tasks if that's where they find their niche, I'd like to see more article work as well. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - insufficient article writing experience (that is, after all, why we're here. I wouldn't hire a vegan to run my steakhouse either). Too much pestering of opposers also makes me uncomfortable. WilyD 13:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not hire a vegan to run your steakhouse? You know they won't be stealing product!  ;-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Pestering"? Mentifisto has replied to only four opposers, two of whom have now actually switched their votes as a result. RfA is a discussion, and we should not be discouraging this by ridiculous "badger" votes. I, of course, am replying to your particular comment to save the candidate more of this kind of trouble. GlassCobra 14:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying "four replies" based on this page? Because there's also off wiki and probably replies to people who opposed on other pages besides this. I'm just saying that WilyD could've been talking about those as well. Killiondude (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Contributions/Mentifisto shows that Mentifisto has made no edits other than to this page since it was opened; as for off-wiki, I don't know how Wily would be aware of that. As GlassCobra said, we are here to discuss, and there's been no evidence that the candidate has been "pestering" anyone. I'm quite sure I've made more comments here than he has. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, just for the record I never said he was "pestering". I guess we will have to see what Willy meant (if he cares to clarify his comment). Killiondude (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WilyD's opinion is legitimate. Let me guess that if some one or a group of some ones questioned each supporter and tried to sway them that many (perhaps, rightly) would yell disruption. Isn't it just fair play to let people's opinions not be drama bait? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Most assuredly, there are extremes to what some would call "badgering"; if a candidate were to respond to every last opposer, and in a singularly harsh and abusive manner, I doubt that any would disagree that it would be a poor reflection on the candidate, and would more than likely garner him or her some opposes. However, I do not feel that what appears to be perfectly valid discussion on an exceedingly small handful of opposes could conceivably constitute "pestering" in any sense of the word. GlassCobra 18:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So you reject WilyD's opinion out of hand because what has gone on cannot constitute pestering in any sense of the word? You're of course free to do that; others are free to acknowledge that another's opinion on the matter is legitimate. A also note that you are unlikely to feel that the same level of discussion on the "supports" (which, true to form, are less wordy than the opposes) would be just as fine. I see how my oppose has led to its own little discussion below. Can no one just state an oppose opinion and be unquestioned over it - or is that only available to the support opinions? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry if you felt pestered below. I thought I could clear up my ideas (as I worded it in the answers above). -- Mentifisto 21:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, I mean, I'm concerned about the discussion moreso than the candidate (not really that Mentifisto is pestering, but that supporters are unduly diligent in thoroughly examining the opposes), such that it's harder to get a fair picture of what's going on, and the atmosphere is turned against legitimate and genuine discussion. If a candidate's record speaks for itself, why are the supporters so aggressive? If not? It's just concerning, not conclusive of anything. The lack of relevent experience is the main concern. WilyD 21:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    @Carlos: I reject that particular part of Wily's opinion, yes, but that was the only part that I took issue with. I do of course acknowledge that other points of view exist on this matter besides my own, which is precisely why I am discussing this matter with you and Wily. Do you consider this discussion to be a badgering of your opinion? I also would like to address your other point regarding unquestioned opposes -- I note that there have been plenty of opposes even on this particular RfA that do not have discussion underneath them, and that there are of course countless examples of unquestioned opposes on RfAs, though this may be taking you too literally. As I'm sure you know, due to the unequal nature of RfA, opposes are of course inherently more questioned than supports are, and it should not be surprising that most of the discussion takes place on the opposing side. The discussion under your oppose, for example, appears to stem from a desire for clarification. Does this constitute badgering/pestering? GlassCobra 23:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not used the term "badgering" and only used "pestering" as describing the rejection of WilyD's opinion. If I thought you were "pestering" or "badgering" me, I'd ignore you. I assume you want my response for your edification, as did the editor who asked for clarification below my "oppose". I do not regard that RfA's are "unequal", because we are trying to arrive at consensus, which does not have to reflect anything but a rough consensus and I would assume that we take "support" statements as seriously as we do "opposes", that "supports" have little scrutiny or minimum follow-up is probably because of a combination of past practice, decorum, and the less outcome-driven purposefulness of the oppose folks. If a candidate is so problematic, the "oppose"s will be there in sufficient numbers; if not, the candidacy succeeds despite the handful of opposes. I (and I think from experience, most "oppose" people in various candidacies) rarely feel so strongly about this do the proponents of a candidate. By the way, I didn't use the vigorous debate engendered of many of the opposes as a reason to oppose which I do recall doing at some prior candidacy when it was by the candidate and over the top. In the final analysis, this candidacy will pass and s/he will begin easily and not abuse the tools, and the world won't fall apart; but, if it didn't succeed and the candidate spent some time adressing the concerns raised by the opposes and came back after an appropriate time, the world won't fall apart either. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose answers to questions show that this editor does not have the experience at this time to be an admin. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please expound upon your reasoning? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. Answer to 10a: Letting users have days of free webhosting for their link by the simple expedient of using ((underconstruction)) is counter to policy - see WP:CSD#A3. Another troubling answer (10c) begins "I think admins should act as middlemen in disputes" indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of admins' roles which I'll assume is from lack of experience in article writing and consensus building. I do not believe that admin's have any role in article building that differs from any other editor in good standing. We, as well as other experienced editors who are not admins, may be asked to intercede to mediate or otherwise try to find compromise, but it is not explicitly nor uniquely an admin function to be the middlemen when parties cannot agree. If editors violate our rules, we may intercede as appropriate, but to tell those who say that global warming is man's fault and those who say it's a natural phenomena that it's somewhere in between and back that up with the (inferential) threat of use of admin tools is abusive. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When parties cannot agree then they are referred to third party mediation as I said in Q7. Admins could act as mediators of conflicts not content and they could be asked to decide on consensus, which is what I implied. Also 10a varies... certainly not most of them will remain for days, and the majority would be deleted within minutes if the user doesn't reply. I tried to make some leeway. -- Mentifisto 18:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Pages are frequently userfied for this purpose - as long as the user is actively working on the page to get it up to article standard, consensus and the user page guideline both currently hold that this is a perfectly acceptable use of userspace. As for resolving disputes, it may not be a specific duty of administrators, but we are certainly asked to do so more often than your average non-admin, and it's good that Mentifisto would be willing to step up to this role. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose - No offence intended, but upon reading all the questions and answers, I'm just not filled with confidence. Editing others comments and being so laid back about it doesn't seem very appropriate to me. The article writing experience is also a concern. At the moment I really don't feel you have the right qualities, but given a few months, I'm sure this could change. Jenuk1985 | Talk 00:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose - I strongly oppose this candidate; as a relative newcomer to wikipedia, I obeject to administrarotship rights being given to a user who has yet do demonstrate credentials in editing. Indeed, I am dismayed that others have not examined the log files to discover that said user had made almost no contributions to the main article area. --Jdzooks (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This diff and the user's lack of contributions elsewhere make me suspect this isn't a valid !vote... Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose I think this person has too little experience —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkspartan4121 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Unfortunate Oppose Little real article development. Little understanding of policy ("show me where the community consensus says not to edit other's comments" still has my mouth hanging open). I believe you're on the right path, with the right overall attitude. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I fix other people's obvious typos sometimes (even at RfA). - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral leaning support - I don't know. I've had conversations with Mentifisto in the past (mostly on IRC), and whist he has always come across as a friendly and helpful individual and editor, I have often wondered about his knowledge of policy (I can't cite any specific issues, my mind has decided to lock them away in an inaccessible vault). On one hand, he won't break the Wiki, on the other hand, my memory is telling me that I've seen something which should make me wary. If I can't remember what it was, I'll probably support in the next few days. If I don't change in the next few days, please interpret this neutral as a support. — neuro(talk)(review) 23:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral - The exchange between Mentisto and Caspian Blue worries me. Good communication skills and ability to keep civility are key for admins. I am currently leaning oppose, but I will decide which way this goes as the RFA progresses. FingersOnRoids♫ 00:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I'd like to see more article building and a more consistent contribution track record before supporting. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral per FingersOnRoids. Excessive use of Huggle makes for one-dimensional Wikipedians. Furthermore, editing others' comments is just not done here. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral A strong editor who I really wanted to support, but I have to agree with Ottava Rima about the editing of other editor's comments. This is a rookie error, and the response from Mentifisto was discouraging. The only acceptable response is "I'm sorry, it won't happen again" not "I only do it a little bit." Aunt Entropy (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To both of the above, I would note that Mentifisto did also say "Although even after saying this, if consensus agrees that such edits absolutely shouldn't be made, I won't." He is taking these comments to heart, so do please consider giving him the benefit of the doubt as SoWhy has. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to support per Hersfold Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral I want to support you but I don't have any grasp on your interpretation of policies and guidelines not dealing with vandalism. Looking back through the past several thousand contributions, the only ones to any Wikipedia: page were to the huggle whitelist and AIV. Being tough on vandalism is a good thing, but admins should have knowledge of other aspects of the encyclopedia as well. ThemFromSpace 20:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral (move from Oppose). Since the indiscreet comment seems like one time thing and I highly respect Hersfold's administrative conducts, so I switch my vote. Also, I saw you got a DYK badge yesterday which tells me that you can write articles, not just remain as one of bunch of hugglers (though that effort seems like preparation for this RFA). Moreover there are many bad admins who can not learn anything from mistakes unlike you did, so opposing you at this point for the matter would be meaningless. However I still think that you need to work more building contents and be wary when you say something sensitive issues to others, so this is at my best of assuming good faith. Best of luck--Caspian blue 04:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as I am happy candidate has never been blocked, but this is essentially a WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also well over a year ago. Can't people make a few mistakes? Stifle (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral -- A great editor who will not abuse the tools, but not editing articles without a script is a problem. --Best, ₮RUCӨ 23:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral: I can understand why he fixed those typos/grammar errors . . . I sometimes have an almost unbearable impulse to do the same thing myself. But even as a true newbie, I somehow knew that correcting the typos of others . . . or even mentioning them, was bad form. Maybe it shouldn't be a big no-no, but it is. Part of me says, "yay, he fixed those damn annoying errors" and the other part of me says, "that doesn't bode very well for his judgement . . ." Hence neutral. Otherwise, I think his activity looks quite solid, but I do get an overall impression of communication difficulties. Maedin\talk 19:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral - I can certainly see most of the arguments on both sides (although we do need more admins), but I think that I can not oppose. Bearian (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2009 (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.
Category