Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mufka

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

Mufka

Final (22/33/7); Ended Tue, 21 Oct 2008 06:11:30 (UTC)

Mufka (talk · contribs) - Mufka's first edit was in Nov 2006. Since then he's been averaging over 1000 edits a month, almost exclusively fixing vandalism. Through April 2007 he was mostly a recent change patroller but since then has specialized in the WP:DOY articles. I'm sure anyone who watches any of these articles has seen his edits. Can we trust him with the tools? After more than 27,000 vandal fighting edits over nearly two years, I think the answer should be obvious. Rick Block (talk) 03:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 13:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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: The vast majority of the work that I have done thus far has been in vandalism clean-up and maintenance of the date pages. In my daily activity, I see a lot of areas where I could be helpful in dealing with issues such as CSD and AIV. It is my intention to use the tools practically and I do not intend to run around looking for somewhere to use the mop.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I think my best contribution to the project is my willingness to operate in the mundane and often thankless world of cleanup. I have been confused with a bot in the past which indicates to me that others see value in what I do. I don’t contribute a whole lot in content (but every once in a while, I do get sucked in by curiosity and spend hours researching things and modestly improving them). As far as tangible contributions that I am happy with, I’m happy with my implementation of the new calendar templates and my work standardizing the date articles. There is always a lot of cleanup that needs to be done and I think that editors like me are important because we can contribute significantly to keeping the project moving forward – specifically because the credibility of the project depends on how well editors keep out unconstructive contributions and contributors.

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: Every editor runs into a difference of opinion now and then. I think the key to operating in this environment is recognizing that everyone is here because they want to be; everyone, for the most part, is contributing in a way that they feel is constructive; I don’t know everything and do not aspire to; there are some people who are more qualified to handle certain issues; and I might be wrong about something and that’s just how it goes. I’ve had my share of dealings with combative editors and trolls but I don’t remember any particular instances and I don’t believe any of my dealings with other editors have resulted in any ill feelings – certainly not on my part. I like to see that thought has gone into things. I like to understand things and the rationale behind them particularly so that I can help to defend them if the need arises. I think the community has established enough mechanisms for dealing with conflict to assist in the civil resolution of any conflicts. Going forward, whether this RfA passes or not, I can envision no scenario in which I would not be able to maintain a level head and deal constructively with conflict.

Questions from GlassCobra

4. Looking through your contributions, your Wikipedia-space edits are a fraction of your mainspace edits, and most of them are to AIV. As a pre-emptive response to opposers that see a high number of projectspace edits as a requisite for adminship, could you explain your low activity there?

A. Most of my project space work has been at WP:DOY. I like to contribute in areas where there is a need that I think I can fill. Many of the project and policy discussions are long and drawn out long before I see them. I don't think it is all that constructive for me to jump in to try to contribute if I first need to spend a lot of time reading pages of archives just to get up to speed. I stay out of ongoing discussions unless I feel that there is a gross oversight in the process or if I think there is something in the discussion that I need to be clear on if I'm going to help to enforce a new policy.

5. This is normally Xenocidic's RfA question. However, I like it as well. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A. Based on the available information the short answer is that the block stands. In the process of reviewing the last unblock request, I would have looked at the page history and seen the cockfag comment 4 minutes earlier. The 11:18 edit is only marginally constructive in that it is unreferenced and uses weasel statements. Good faith is really out the window after such blatant vandalism. The block will expire and then the user gets another chance. It's entirely reasonable.

6. Under what circumstances would you voluntarily give up your adminship/run for reconfirmation?

A. I think the only reasons to resign are in the event of retirement or if I had significant feedback from my peers that my actions were unconstructive, uninformed or detrimental to the project. I don't want to be the guy that no one trusts.

7. Please give a precise explanation of what you believe WP:BLP means. When should one ignore the policy?

A. You are welcome to write something about a living person, but you had better provide reliable sources. Ignoring this policy is not an option.

8. You see that another administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?

A. The policy is don't unblock without discussing it with the blocking admin. If we disagree about the action and cannot compromise on it, then we'd ask for input at WP:AN.

9. Everyone's got moments that they haven't been proud of while doing work around here. Can you please name a specific incident that you feel you handled badly? I'm not trying to get you in trouble here, or give opposers any ammo, just trying to see how you work under pressure. If you would, please describe a bit also how you would have handled the incident now, and how you feel this has given you further preparation for handling the admin tools.

A. I honestly don't remember such an incident, but I'll try to come back to this one.

Optional question from Keepscases

10. Please compose a limerick about your Wikipedia experiences.

A: I've never written a limerick before, but ...

Mufka is always on Wiki,

His wife thinks it's a little sickly,

Don't even try to pass,

a legend, hero, pimp, or badass

because Mufka is watching the Wiki.

Optional question from Juliancolton (talk · contribs)

11. Have you significantly contributed to any articles during your time at Wikipedia? If so, have any of them been recognized as a GA or FA?

A. While it has not been my focus, I have contributed significantly to some articles. James C. Dozier is one, I'd have to search for others. None that I know of, are GA or FA.

Additional questions from iMatthew

12. What is your opinion of plain "per GuidlineX" votes in AfD's?

A. It is a clear and concise way to point out a reason for an article to be deleted without rehashing the argument behind the cited policy. If it truly fits the case, there is no need to elaborate.

13. In your own words, what is the role of an administrator on Wikipedia?

A. The role of an administrator is to help to preserve and promote the integrity of the project by helping to educate when possible, counsel when necessary, and use the tools available to prevent activity that is detrimental to the project.

Additional questions from George The Dragon

14. Your first edit was to your monobook. Did you edit Wikipedia under an account before this one, and is that account still active?

A. For my first account, in August 2006, I used my real name. When I became more involved in vandalism, I didn't want my real name to be tied to all of the edits. I created my current account in November 2006. I have used my old account as recently as February 2008 to edit historical articles. That account currently has 168 edits. I prefer not to disclose my real name publicly if it is not required.

Optional questions from LAAFan

15. If you see an established user start to vandalize, what steps would you make to insure it stops?

A. The simple process for an established user would be: engage, warn, warn, warn, report/block. The engagement part is the important part in this case vs. a drive-by anon vandal. But if engagement does not result in any response from the editor, then the process necessarily needs to progress as it would for any vandal. Established users deserve an extended benefit of the doubt but continued disruptive action cannot be allowed to go unchecked. I try to be careful not to template the regulars, definitely not for a first warning. But once I have attempted to engage without response moving forward in an efficient and clear procedural manner is the most objective way to handle such things.

16. If you see one IP address repeatedly vandalizing one page, but none other recent vandalism has occurred, would you protect the page? Why or why not?

A. No, I wouldn't protect the page. It isn't a problem with the page or its likelihood to be vandalized. It is a problem with the one IP. I would see that the IP was given a full range of warnings. Then either block the IP or, if it happened to be a page that I am involved with a lot, I would submit to AIV to avoid the possibility of a claim of bias. There are other factors to be considered, such as previous blocks, type of vandalism, etc., but the same basic process applies.

Additional questions from Blooded Edge^awards

17. As an administrator, you will most probably come across rash users/IPs, who will not take kindly to reversions by yourself, for whatever the reason. Indeed, you may already have been in such situations before. I want to know what exactly your personal stance is on the cool down block. Wikipedia generally discourages admins from taking this course of action, due to the belief it only inflames the situation. However, there is still the small chance that the subject will indeed take the oppurtunity to review his/her actions, and may change his/her way of acting to something more appropriate. Assuming that Wikipedia had no clear policy on this, would you use such a block? Or wait until the IP/User simply becomes too irksome to ignore?

A. In my view, a block is a block. If the editor has been disruptive and has been sufficiently warned, then a block should be issued. Sticking to a multi-level warning process helps to ensure that good faith is assumed and the disruptive editor has an opportunity to understand the implications of disruptive behavior. I don't think cool down should be the explicit intent of a block, but in reality blocks do tend to serve that purpose.

18. This isn't really to do with your work on Wikipedia, but is important if you indeed gain the requested status. Is your password alphanumeric? Formed by at least 8 characters? Not by words in the dictionary? A hiijacked admin account can do widespread damage across the site, it is important to confirm the security of your account. Please note that isn't some carefuly orchestrated plot to get at your account.

A. I have worked in Information Security for over ten years. I'm not a 'do as I say, not as I do' type in that regard. To answer directly, yes, I use a strong password.

General comments

• See Mufka's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Mufka: Mufka (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Discussion

• I remember Aitias (talk · contribs) was opposed at his first RFA for being a dedicated anti-vandal fighter who was a bit rough around the edges in other areas. I've asked him to stop by here and see if maybe he could coach Mufka to a successful RFA_2, assuming this one doesn't pass. MBisanz ^talk 22:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I have replied on my talk page. Regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Let me get this straight, many of the opposes are opposing because of lack of deference to an admin who was not responsive to multiple queries? Really? And this is one interaction a year ago out of more than 25,000 over two years? Stunning. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  According to the talk page, the most recent threat to block was 21 September 2008, not a year ago. And spending 11 months threatening to have someone blocked for violating the MoS, and never bringing it to the attention of other users at a noticeboard, shows a lack of judgment to me. MBisanz ^talk 17:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I comment here only to help to round out the conversation on my actions RE: Hemanshu. I don't expect any opinions to change, but I think it's important that my reasoning be out in the open so that I can be criticized with full disclosure - after all, this is a learning process for me as well. Hemanshu's first edit that caught my attention was a significant change to a date article[1]. The change is not bad of itself, but in an effort to keep the 366 date articles consistent, it is reasonable that such a change be discussed so that it can be implemented efficiently across the board. This process has been an uncontested part of WP:DOY since September 2007. My first contact with Hemanshu was a personalized message asking that he discuss the change[2]. The next day in response to this edit, I left a second personal message asking for discussion[3] Admittedly, in retrospect, that second note looks like a templated message. Two months later the same type of edit was done here. I left a templated v3 message at that point on the basis that the editor refused to discuss anything[4]. Eight months later, the same type of edit was done here. In response to this, I left this personal note explaining that due to the lack of discussion, I could only assume that the editor was acting in bad faith. The next day this edit led me to believe that my assumption was correct. I left this level 4 template warning thinking that it might get the editor's attention if it had a stop sign next to it.

There are two issues contained in the discussion of these actions. The first is the use of templated messages on an established user. 3 of the 5 messages that I left were personalized messages. In my opinion, sometimes a formal warning mechanism is necessary to drive the point home. It is standard procedure to leave a block warning. I know no policy that suggests that admins are exempt from this practice, and they shouldn't be once good faith is reasonably doubted. In this case, I was sure that the message would spark discussion. I was wrong and now it gives the impression that I am unable to communicate. This is unfortunate. My confusion over the severity of this action was compounded today when admin User:Dougweller left a templated message for Hemanshu.

The second issue is the fact that I did not bring the editor's actions to AN sooner. Since this was an experienced user who happened to be an admin, and the edits were of low impact, I thought it was in his interest to keep the issue out of formal channels if possible. The user did not deserve to be paraded for review for a quirky lack of reason. I was one editor who noticed some odd behavior and I thought it was a civil thing to do. The user was not using any admin privileges so I had no reason to believe that the issue was urgent. If Hemanshu had made the same type of edits after the last warning, I would have put it to AN.

I was purposefully cautious in my dealings with Hemanshu. When User:It Is Me Here picked up on the situation (for different reasons), we discussed possible courses of action[5]. I think my argument against WP:RFCC was valid and my suggestion to go to WP:WQA was a step in the right direction once it was clear that the issue could not be handled privately. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 19:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you know that Don't template the regulars page exists? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I am familiar with that essay and I have pointed editors to it in the past. I think my feelings on it are clearly laid out in #15 above and my preceding comments (if not I will elaborate if asked). Since it is an essay and not policy I think that I have abided by it to a very reasonable degree from the perspective of etiquette. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 17:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Of course. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
2. Support, A quick flick through some assorted parts of your contributions suggests you know very well how to identify vandalism and how to maturely deal with it and with the users involved. Good speedy tagging, too. Evidently you know what you're doing and can make good use of the tools. ~ mazca ^t|c 13:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

   Addendum: I'm moderately concerned by some of the incidents brought up by the opposes, though I still think you'd definitely be a net positive with admin tools. ~ mazca ^t|c 08:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

3. Support, essentially per nominator. Lectonar (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

   Weak support I've spent the past half-hour analyzing Mufka's contributions, and I see nothing of immediate concern. I see a good use of AIV, and recently, AFD. I am concerned, however, as I look at your most recent 500 edits, that nearly every single contribution is generated by Twinkle and Popups. While that isn't entirely bad, I would still like to see some actual article work. However, I trust you with the tools, so I'll support. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Changed to oppose

   Support No problems here. LittleMountain5 ^review! 13:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Switched to Oppose

4. Support, has clue. I specially liked the answer to question 2, by the way. You do excellent, oft-overlooked work. It may not be as pretty as a string of FA's but it's just as important as fancy writing; gnomish and AV work leaves big article-writers free to write without vandals spoiling their pretty words. Ironholds (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

   Support - Ironholds essentially said what I wanted to say. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 14:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Abstaining. The oppose section has brought to light concerns that I just can't shake. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

   Support per Ironholds. AdjustShift (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Changed to oppose; see below. AdjustShift (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

5. Conditional support per Colton. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 14:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
6. Support per amusing limerick. ;) GlassCobra 14:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
7. Support Keepscases (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

   Weak support, but support is support The sentiment of Ironholds' comment bodes well, but I would ask you to reconsider how you deal with inexperienced users. I'm assuming you're sharper with CSD since Nov 2007, but this (admins only) is not only absolutely not patent nonsense (G1), but a huge good faith edit. This ties in with your response to question five. Yes it is pushing assume good faith to the hilt somewhat, and yes it could be better in terms of prose, but it is nonetheless: a constructive edit. "The block will expire - Exactly - blocks are priceless. Then again, so are constructive edits, but for different reasons. Please consider that. Best, WilliamH (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

   • Switched to oppose. WilliamH (talk) 10:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

8. Support. I should have some reservations, because no two lines of a limerick should end with the same word, but I'm throwing caution to the winds just this once. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
9. Support: Looks fine to me. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
10. Support, great work on DOY pages, no concerns. Deiz talk 16:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
11. Support. Per nom by Rick Block (talk · contribs) and answers to the first three questions. Should be a positive force as an administrator. Cirt (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
12. Support Candidate seems willing to do thankless work and presents no obvious reasons for concern. Good luck! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
13. Support Charles Edward 21:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
14. Support Seems like he's in control and knows what he's doing. Best of Luck! EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
15. Support I'm convinced. -- how do you turn this on 01:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
16. Support Why the hell not, its no big deal.--intraining ^{Jack In} 08:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
17. Moral Support, nice limerick. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
18. Weak Support; while some of the oppose rationals are concerning, I believe that this user will be a net positive. RockManQ ^(talk) 21:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
19. Support. I believe this editor is trustworthy. X MarX the Spot (talk) 03:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
20. Support as candidate has never been blocked and per awards on the candidate's userpage. --A Nobody 14:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
21. To outweigh this nonsense about a non-communicative admin. I don't think you'd do badly. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 14:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
22. Support - Seems a nice enough guy who [most likely] wouldn't intentionally abuse the tools. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 18:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
23. Support I've seen some missteps but nothing that makes me fear this user would abuse or misuse the tools. AniMate 04:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Sorry to be the first one in this section, but this candidate seems much too eager to delete articles rather than create or enhance them. His very recent attempts to put an A7 tag on a new article about a French band that opened for David Bowie [6] and his nominating of articles on major party candidates for ongoing U.S. elections [7] and [8] do not inspire confidence. I’ve seen no evidence of the candidate making any attempt to save at-risk articles, and a severe lack of experience in article creation doesn’t help. As Juliancolton pointed out, his overreliance on Twinkle and Popups is not a good thing. The number of weak and conditional prefixes in the first dozen Supports confirms that even his supporters feel this candidate is traveling with baggage that may create problems down the road. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

   While I agree that this might not have been the best speedy deletion request (even though opening for David Bowie by itself does not indicate notability in my mind), I disagree with your rationale to oppose based on the two AfD nominations. Regardless of the end results of the respective AfD debates, both Gary Jeandron and Monty Lankford seem to clearly fail WP:POLITICIAN (unelected candidates for office that have never held international, national or first-level sub-national political office) and I see no other notability indicated outside the political realm for either one of them. If you're arguing that those nominations were procedurally erroneous, I would disagree with you because bringing articles like these up for discussion seems like the most proper thing to do if you've established lack of verifiable notability. If you and the editor disagree about what constitutes verifiable notability, I understand your concern even though I would hope that this difference in opinion would not be your only reason to oppose someone's adminship request. But if an article speaks of the subject's political career as the only notable thing about him and that career theoretically fails WP:POLITICIAN, what should the editor do to demostrate an "attempt to save at-risk articles"? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose This string of warnings to admin Hemanshu User_talk:Hemanshu#Calendar_edits raises strong question to me of this user's willingness to explain their position or try to work with fellow users. Firing off 5 templated warnings to an experienced admin without ever explaining the context for those warnings or trying to counsel them, and labeling this edit [9] 4-im vandalism is not something I would expect from an admin. Quite frankly, if I had seen you reverting that edit as vandalism, I would have seriously considered revoking your rollback rights and/or disabling twinkle. MBisanz ^talk 17:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

   To elaborate further, my main issue is with your characterization of his edits as "vandalism". If you had merely reverted, I probably would not have cared. if I had seen a lengthy thread on his user page, I would not have cared. But seeing the constant "You have vandalized, stop or you will be blocked" sort of message on his talk page and seeing it in the edit summary of the reversions is very concerning. I know DOY articles are your specialty and we all get a bit protective of our home turf, but we still need to try and characterize things properly and discuss things amicably, which I am not seeing in this instance. MBisanz ^talk 20:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

   Mufka seems to me to have been trying to start a conversation, but it seems this admin (who is mostly inactive) wouldn't respond. If he did this over the course of a year, I'd start getting annoyed too, and it's not always clear that somebody is an admin. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

   Don't worry, I'm not badgering you on this oppose. As one of the supporters, I took note of your comments here and looked into it a little bit. I'd say that your are correct in your assessment, but also, it appears that Mufka was acting in reasonably good faith and just not getting any response from Hemanshu. Templating the poor guy was definitely a faux paux, but it does look as though Mufka was trying to get things in line with his interpretation of policy. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

   The order of the warnings is confusing, but based on the date stamps, the first warning is:

   "I invite you to discuss radical changes to Wikicalendar articles on the project talk page here. Devoted editors work hard to keep the format of the articles consistent but it seems that you have been making radical formatting changes without discussion over the last few months. It seems that you have only a passing interest in the articles and your edits are consistently reverted. Thanks. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)"

   and the second warning is:

   "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to June 9. Your edits have been reverted. Please discuss your proposed changes. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)"

   the third warning is:

   " Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to October 31, you will be blocked from editing. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)"

   I'll note these warnings were regarding edits to the date format of pages. I'll note that It Is Me Here's comments to Hemanshu are much more helpful, as was the idea of a Wiki-etiquette report. Threatening to block for bad MoS generally isn't cool. MBisanz ^talk 20:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

   Speaking as an admin, I'm actually more concerned that the admin Mufka was addressing was non-responsive over the course of a year's worth of attempts by Mufka to engage in a discussion. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, as I voiced my opposition in the past to Mikkala's non-communicativeness, I also disagree with Hemanshu's. I wisht that Mufka had brought ti to other admins' attention sooner, say an AN thread, than resorting to threats of blocking, which no admin would have actually carried without an AN thread. MBisanz ^talk 01:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose I just feel that an Admin should do more to contribute to Wikipedia than just revert vandalism. While reverting vandalism is good, it is more important for a user to spend most of his time writing articles and participating in discussions. It's great that you spend a lot of time reverting vandalism, but I think an admin should have more experience in other aspects of editing Wikipedia.--Parthian Scribe (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose due to candidate's recent CSD tags [10]. NVO (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

   Errrh a disambig page that consists of two redlinks and nothing else, and the only links to it are from user pages; He may not have used the correct path to delete it, but why would it be such a big mistake to delete that page? ϢereSpielChequers 22:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

   Not a problem at all if properly reviewed and weighed by an experienced admin or the AFD consensus (yours truly's noms are sometimes rejected too). Big problem if the nominator obtains the button. NVO (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

5. Oppose per MBisanz. I don't want an admin to fire string of warnings to experienced editors without ever explaining the context for those warnings or trying to counsel them. AdjustShift (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose Per AdjustShift. America69 (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose Changed from support. The points that MBisanz raised are indeed extremely concerning. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose - per Mbisanz. Whoa. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose — Per MBisanz. Templates can only go so far, I need an admin who can talk to me personally. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose per lack of understanding of TEMPLAR (yeah, that thing) and quite a strong tendency to own date articles. I realise that in this case the admin was persistent and unforgiving but that's not really much of an excuse. I can't trust you with the power to block experienced users for being bold on the first edit you don't like. Sorry. Garden. 20:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose Speedy deletion should only be invoked in clear cases. The curtness of answers to the Template Questions above would normally be a plus for me, but in this case they regrettably reinforce the concerns above over candidate's strike-first, help-later attitude. Townlake (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
12. Diffs show a deletionist who communicates through templates. Most of the Q&A responses are indefensibly vague. The user page "I think, therefore I revert" is too true to actually be funny. This user seems to be missing a grasp on the big picture, that or his name is missing a couple of syllables. I cannot in good faith support this. — CharlotteWebb 20:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

    "That or his name is missing a couple of syllables" - Oh, come on, that's completely uncalled for! It Is Me Here (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

13. Per Q7. Daniel (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose per MBisanz. Hmm. --Smashville^talk 21:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
15. Oppose - Matthew has brought some serious issues to light, I simply cannot support with such problems, but if they are demonstrated to be corrected by the next RfA you apply for (if you do), I will no doubt be ready to change my stance. — neuro^(talk) 22:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
16. Oppose. Candidate seems a little "deletion happy". Lacks communication skills as well. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 23:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
17. Oppose - Per MBisanz (talk · contribs), clearly this user needs some more experience. Tiptoety ^talk 01:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
18. Oppose Overall some good contributions, specifically anti vandalism. However, I usually desire more well rounded candidates. I also have many reservations due to what MBisanz brought up. --Banime (talk) 01:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
19. per MBisanz, bad communication by one party in a dispute doesn't excuse it for the other. Mr.Z-man 02:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
20. Oppose per MBisanz, it's a very bad idea to give vandalism warnings to an experienced editor for edits that were obviously not vandalism. Hut 8.5 06:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
21. Oppose per MBisanz, seems too eager to delete pages. I've had an experience with this editor, he put an A7 tag on Who's Ya Daddy? despite the fact that they are notable. They already had an article, but I didn't know that. Too eager. SpecialK(KoЯn flakes) 09:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
22. Oppose - doing well, but not yet. iMatthew (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
23. Oppose Aftering factoring in MBisanz's comments with my initial mild concern. WilliamH (talk) 10:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
24. Oppose Ironhold makes a good point - not everybody can write articles and the project needs everybody - BUT the project does not need template throwers with poor communication skills as administatorsMjchesnel (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
25. Oppose. Not following WP:DTTR shows Mufka's ineffectiveness to communicate effectively with editors. Also, giving warning templates in increasing severity over a span of 11 months sounds a bit excessive. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

    I don't think they were template messages, actually. Stifle (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

    The 3rd and 5th warning (the ones with the warning sign) are certainly generic template messages. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

26. Oppose per the first few concerns above by Ecoleetage and MBisanz. SchfiftyThree ^(talk!) 20:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
27. Strong Oppose An admin who doesn't know how to communicate, and is unforgiving and deals out blocks capriciously? No thanks. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
28. Oppose Switched from Support. I'm sorry, but the links brought up by Ecoleetage and MBisanz are concerning. LittleMountain5 ^review! 23:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

    #Strong Oppose - per all the above --Avoid panic (talk) 09:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

    Indef-blocked sockpuppet J.delanoy^gabs_adds 09:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

29. Oppose - owing to the diffs identified above. This candidate is likely to end up warring with other admins over good-faith actions. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
30. Oppose, unfortunately, there are too many admins who don't understand where CSD A7 applies, we do not need another. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC).
31. Oppose - not to pile on or anything, but I would think we need more admins who are going to work in all areas of this project - it is, after all, an encyclopedia. Yet another speedy-patrolling admin is not what we need; that the nom is willing to do so is commendable, but I would like to see some more work outside of that area. --tennisman 20:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
32. Oppose per Parthsian. More all-around experience needed. Grsz^Review! 05:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
33. Oppose - sorry to pile on, but this does not look good. Maybe with more time and experience? Bearian (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
34. Oppose - Haven't interacted with this user but MBisanz's concerns can't let me trust on the candidate. —macy 23:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral as I really cannot say who is in the right re. Hemanshu (especially seeing as I am partially involved in the matter and the situation regarding that user is still being looked into at time of writing), and Mufka did help me when I asked for clarification re. Hemanshu on his talk page, but he then directed me to WP:WQA when that thread was later redirected to WP:AN as it didn't belong on WQA, which suggests an incomplete grasp of policy. Just not enough there to make me support, I'm afraid. It Is Me Here (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral. I've been thinking this one over, and I really cannot support right now due to the misuse of user warning templates. In time I will be able to support. Sorry, Malinaccier (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral: Proper Communication and good judgements are the keys to a good admin which I am unsure about the candidate at this point. Perhaps a good Admin coach can help him out. -- Tinu Cherian - 11:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral. Mufka is a good contributor. However he has made some notable mistakes. Also, the answer to question 7 isn't quite right: we shouldn't be including personal information (such as phone numbers), even with reliable sources. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
5. Neutral Good contributor, but misuse of warning templates. Sorry--LAAFan^sign _review 00:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
6. Neutral - Both Mufka and Hemanshu were in the wrong in my opinion but the communication concerns are still a sticking point. Templating Hemanshu was not the best course of action, it wouldn't have been that difficult to request they stop without restoring to the templates, but still a good editor nonetheless. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 12:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
7. I would have opposed per A to Q7, but I did not want to pile-on while the number of opposes are greater than supports. I strongly recommend the candidate withdraw asap. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

   I don't think think there is a good reason why he needs to withdraw his nomination ASAP. The candidate has been given an offer to benefit from admin coaching from a well respected administrator who believes, same as a few others, that the candidate has potential to be a decent administrator and a benefit to this project but needs some fine tuning, so to speak. Regardless of the fact that the candidate is aware of the practical impossibility of gaining adminship at the conclusion of this RfA, getting feedback from the community is a part of that fine tuning process and he should not withdraw. 12:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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.