Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mufka 2

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


Mufka

Nomination

Final: (57/3/2); closed by bibliomaniac15 on 20:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mufka (talk · contribs) – Today I am nominating Mufka for adminship. He has been an editor since 2006 and is a consistent contributor to the project. I met Mufka at his first RFA when I expressed concerns over his communication skills. However, I saw that he was a serious contributor who is dedicated to the project, so I decided to quietly follow him and see how he took the criticism of that RFA. I am pleased to say that I have seen much growth in him since that RFA.

Specifically, at his prior RFA issues with poor communication and trigger-happy CSD tagging were brought up. Watching Mufka, I see he now communicates much better and is not trigger happy in dealing with other editors. The incident I ran across at his prior RFA was more of a one-off situation that involved a sockpuppeting administrator refusing to communicate with Mufka (or anyone for that matter), which was unknown at that time and should not have been held against him.

Mufka understands the full range of administrative tasks, including AN, AIV, SPI, and is a strong asset in performing gnome-work in tagging, catting, and cleaning up articles. Also, he is a voice of reason in WP:DOY, helping to standardize a vital area of the wiki. In my work at AFD, I see strong, concise, policy-based comments from him, such as at Gramsci melodic.

I believe if you find Mufka able to perform admin tasks, he will continue to assist the Wikipedia community with AIV patrolling, and housekeeping backlog tasks. MBisanz talk 07:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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: My primary area of interest here has always been in janitorial type work. I enjoy cleaning up vandalism and helping to keep the encyclopedia free of disruptive content. My administrative focus would be in the areas in which I currently participate: CSD, AIV, UAA. I would participate in other areas as I became confident in doing so.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Most of my time is spent in an attempt to keep the project free of things that are generally considered unacceptable. I think my strongest contribution is in that area where most visitors don't even know that people are working. A lot of work goes into keeping the encyclopedia free from vandalism and unconstructive contributions. My project work has focused mostly on WP:DAYS and I'm happy with the work that has been done there.
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: I don't think that any experienced editor has not had some sort of conflict along the way. I generally do not look at conflict in a negative way. Discussion of differing viewpoints is a valuable part of the process that is used to construct the encyclopedia. I have dealt with trolls, children, new users, old users, and users that just don't understand the process. I've worked in high pressure environments for many years and I tend not to get "stressed" in such a way that would negatively impact performance. I haven't come across any situation here that would cause me to feel stress. This environment is actually a good stress relief for me. I do, however, recognize that other users do get stressed and emotional about their contributions. In cases like those, I know that I need to be tactful in how I approach discussion. It's pretty tough to get me ruffled, so my effort is usually, and will be going forward, to find ways to foster constructive communication with editors who are much more ruffle-able.

Q's from flaminglawyer

4. Explain your alignment on (some of) the conflicting Wikipedia philosophies.
R. Reading through all of those philosophies, I found myself thinking that I agree with some parts but none completely. Every one seemed to have one deal-breaking statement in it or too many "ifs" or "buts". It's kind of like trying to align oneself with a political party. I guess I would have to classify myself as a Thoughtfulist. Every issue requires thought.
Question from Ottava Rima
5. If you saw another admin breaking various rules and acting disruptive, would you block them? If so, would you discuss it with others before blocking? How much leniency would you give that admin? Also, how would you answer these questions for respectable editors with various histories (some with clean block logs and being here for an extended time and those who have messy block logs)?
A. A lot depends on the nature of the disruption. If the admin was abusing tools or creating widespread havoc, I would do a lot of things at once - all of which could occur within about 2 minutes of noticing the behavior.
  1. A personal note on the admin's talk page.
  2. poke some other admins on IRC. They may know something I don't.
  3. Investigate the admin's edit history to see if the account has been dormant (suspect compromise)
  4. If I get no response and no assistance from other admins and it is clear that the admin is off-the-rails, then a block may be warranted. There's an awful lot more to it, but yes admins can be blocked. The only difference is that followup in various other channels is required.
Once an admin blatantly violates the trust given by the community, that person is subject to the same rules as everyone else as far as discipline. Experienced editors are no different. We have efficient processes here that make dealing with disruptive behavior reasonably clear cut. Every case is different, but the process is the same. When dealing with established editors, you have better context to their behavior. That doesn't mean that they get a pass for being disruptive. Maybe just a closer look.
Question from Patton123
6. In your opinion, which is worse; edit warring or incivility?
A: Edit warring is more disruptive, but generally more identifiable and therefore more easily dealt with. Incivility undermines progress within the project and it can be hard to identify sometimes. Incivility usually involves a disregard for WP:AGF. It makes editors not want to participate. IMO, incivility is worse.
Optional questions from Aitias
7. Is there any circumstance in which you would delete a page despite a Hangon tag?
A. Yes. The hangon tag is frequently used to prolong the game of seeing how long someone's joke can stay on Wikipedia. Every time the hangon is placed, it must be investigated. Some are more obvious than others. It all comes down to a claim of notability.
8. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback?
A. If asked, I would grant rollback after investigating the editor's edit history to see if they have engaged in a significant amount of vandalism fighting. I would revoke rollback if I found that an editor was using rollback for edit warring or for reverting edits that are clearly not vandalism or disruptive.
9. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be used on Wikipedia?
A. I'm no expert on the complexities of image policy and while I could go and look it up, I think that would misrepresent my current knowledge level. If faced with an issue involving image policy, I would ask for help.
10. An IP vandalises a page. You revert the vandalism and give the IP a final warning on its talk page. After that the IP vandalises your userpage. Summarising, the IP was sufficiently warned and vandalised (your userpage) after a final warning. Would you block the IP yourself or rather report it to WP:AIV? Respectively, would you consider blocking the IP yourself a conflict of interest?
A. The fact that the IP vandalized my user page after a final warning would not constitute a COI. Any activity that was disruptive after the final warning would warrant the block. The fact that the target of the vandalism was my user page (which wouldn't be terribly uncommon) is immaterial.
11. Under what circumstances, if any, would you block a user without any warnings?
A. Most circumstances warrant the execution of the warning process. One circumstance that would warrant a block without warning is gross violation of WP:USERNAME
Optional questions from Looie496
12. Looking over your statistics, I see a huge number of article edits, but remarkably few article talk edits. How does that come about?
A. The majority of my article edits are vandalism reversions or basic cleanup. Vandalism reversion rarely requires discussion on an article talk page.

Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46

13a. 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. If the article was created, then tagged, and then I came across it, it is likely that the article was at least a few minutes old. Blank articles serve no purpose and if someone is going to create an article, the first step needs to be a claim of notability. This does not exist in the example. The underconstruction template isn't meant as a placeholder for empty articles. I wouldn't let the article sit for very long in its current state. I'd delete it unless I had reason to believe that the company had notability, or if it was a redirect candidate. In any case, I wouldn't leave the article as-is. Some of the decision depends on the author and the situation. If I noticed that the author was a new user struggling to get stuff copied from his sandbox, I would likely cut some slack and offer to help, maybe move the article to user space - at least to get the article to the point to meet minimum requirements. I've seen editors get frustrated and quit because they felt like the process of getting started was a bit like Whac-A-Mole.
13b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template; if so, what say you?
A. The same process applies.
Optional questions from Dylan620
14. What is the difference between a block and a ban? Please answer in your own words, no copy-and-pasting.
A. The way I look at it, all blocks are bans, but not all bans are blocks. A block creates a technical impediment to editing while a ban is a community imposed limitation on where an editor is allowed to contribute.
15. This is normally Xeno's RfA question, but I like it too. 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. In this case, unblocking does not reinforce the message that disruptive behavior cannot be tolerated. The first block wasn't taken seriously enough. One apparently good edit in the middle of blatant vandalism doesn't justify a leap of good faith in this case especially considering the unblock request 4 minutes earlier. I wouldn't remove the block. I would leave a message explaining my rationale and encourage the editor to contribute after the expiration of the block.
Optional questions from Deacon of Pndapetzim
16. Does the content of a policy page constitute proof of wikipedia policy?
A. The fact that something exists on a policy page at any given time is not "proof" of policy. Things like how it got there and demonstrable consensus for the content of the policy are proof that the policy is valid.
17. There's an edit war on a page about ancient Egyptian technology. There are six participants:
1) an admin with some user boxes claiming he is an Egyptology masters student
2) another user with 2 FAs about ancient Middle Eastern topics
3) a red link user, begun one week ago
4) another red link user, begun two months ago
5) an IP coming out of Tacoma, WA
6) an IP coming out of Puyallup, WA
Over the past two days 1) has reverted 11 times, violating 3RR twice, 3) and 4) have reverted four times each, but haven't broken the 3RR. 5) has reverted four times, and 2) has reverted once. The dispute concerns a paragraph introduced by 5) claiming that the Egyptians during the reign of a certain pharaoh were sailing to the Americas, cited to a popular book by an ex-submarine officer.
There is discussion on talk: 1), who left the first message, says this is fringe nonsense; 2), after following a message left on his talk by 1), adds that he agrees with 1); 3) and 4) claim that it is cited material adhering to WP:VER and WP:RS, while 5) points out that WP:VER says The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
6) reports 1) for a violation of 3RR at WP:AN/3. On AN/3, 1) has had time to comment and says that he knew he was violating the 3RR, but says "this rule is not meant to cause harm to the encyclopedia" and he was following WP:IAR as it was the "only way to keep the fringe nonsense added by that bunch of socks out of the article". The diffs presented by 6) are accurate and formatted correctly.
How do you handle the report?
A. There is much detail left out of the scenario that is necessary to make a concrete judgment. For example, what is the tone and content of the talk page messages? What is the edit history of the involved parties? Warning history on other topics? Block history? Are there patterns that indicate sockpuppetry? What do the edit summaries look like? Does the cited source actually check out? In the context of the article, is the fringe theory dangerous enough to warrant violating 3RR per IAR (doesn't seem like it)? Without further information, which would be available in a real scenario, I cannot make a call on this case. Inference can be dangerous.
Question from Smallman12q
18. If an article is speedied but doesn't get deleted and is then prodded...should the prod be removed and an afd opened?
A. The prod doesn't need to be removed unless the reason for the prod is invalid or if someone thinks that the article should not be deleted. If the reason for the prod is insufficient, but an editor thinks that the article should still be deleted, then they can take it to AfD (or they could just wait and see what an admin thinks of the prod). I look at prod as a mini-AfD. One argument is made, it can be reviewed for not less than 5 days, and then if no one objects (and an admin finds the argument to be valid) it can be deleted.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

  • The candidate's talk page and the talk page for the DAYS project provide excellent evidence of how the candidate handles situation-specific disagreements and policy arguments. With that in mind, what is the point of Question 17? Townlake (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Support
  1. Breaking the ice support.--Tikiwont (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, seems fine. Stifle (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Looks like a good editor. I liked seeing lots of friendly and helpful talk page communication with newer users in your contribs. FlyingToaster 18:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Odds are that you're not going to delete the main page or go crazy and block everyone who you hate, so support.--Giants27 T/C 18:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Will use the tools well; good contributions so far. -download | sign! 18:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 18:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - Not found any issues so far. — neuro(talk) 18:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Concerns of previous RFA overcame and user has been around since Nov 2006 and see no concerns as per track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong support Wizardman 19:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support -- Seems like the editor has learned from past RfA, especially seeing your answer to the last question about conflicts.--₮RUCӨ 19:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Master&Expert (Talk) 19:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 20:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - Support (per Giants27) :) - Fastily (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak support. Low content worries me, but besides that looks great at the boring lame admin tasks. Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Weak support per Bsimmons. I think Mufka will be ok. Atlantic Gateways (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I trust him to do good admin work, though I suggest he get more article writing experience.--Pattont/c 22:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Agreed with nominator.  GARDEN  22:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I liked the response to Question 5. Those going for a future RfA, take note. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Also agree with nominator. This is a very helpful user to Wikipedia. Best, Versus22 talk 23:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support "Content" criterion doesn't bother me. It's a different field from admin work. And admin work is where this user is suited. Fribbler (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Caspian's neutral logic has merit, but on the whole I like the candidate's contributions; I don't care about DYK at all, and I know Mufka's created an article or two among the many, many other edits. Also really like the direct-to-the-point talk page correspondence. Townlake (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. While I'd like to see more content-creation like a GA or FA, I find that more than 35k total edits and a strong record in other areas balances out the lack thereof. Cool3 (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support I agree with Fribbler, article building doesn't have much to do with adminship. This is a great editor who will be a great admin. LittleMountain5 review! 00:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Good answers, good contributions, good editor. Will make a good admin. SobaNoodleForYou 02:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Looks good to me. Also, good answers to my questions. — Aitias // discussion 02:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards (candidate has no blocks, does have various awards on userpage, and I do not recall any negative interactions between us). Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support No reason to oppose. User already acts like an admin J.delanoygabsadds 03:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support While I have had my disagreements with Mufka in AfD discussion, I respect the work he has done. He seems to be fair in his approach and did help me (a novice editor) strengthen my articles through his criticism.Abtmcm (talk) 03:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support fr33kman -s- 04:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Fully qualified candidate based on overall record, no issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support A review of your contributions turns up nothing bad, also per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 05:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support The responses to the questions were spot on, and they show that you know the relevant policies here. Cheers, Razorflame 05:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - Much improved from last RfA, will do well. Xclamation point 06:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support I'm running late. MBisanz talk 08:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Lectonar (talk) 08:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - Response to question 5 was key. iMatthew // talk // 11:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Sure! Why not. ∗ \ / (⁂) 11:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Very sensible answers to the questions, no apparent issues in editing. --GedUK  11:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - His first RfA was one of the first I ever watched, and I saw how badly it went. It seems to me that Mufka has very much improved since then. →Dyl@n620 14:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - I see no problems. SimonKSK 14:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Supported last time around, no reason to change Keepscases (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Per great editing and thoughtful answers to an inane amount of questioning. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - We can definitely trust this user to not abuse the tools. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support good answers to the questions. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support No issue from what I have seen. America69 (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support I nominated him last time and was stunned at the outcome. IMO, he would be a great admin. Cool, calm, knowledgeable, meticulous, willing to take on endless tedious tasks. At least for a while he was adhering to a self-imposed limit of 1000 edits per month indicating to me he is unlikely to get sucked in so much he'll burn out. There is no requirement admins work on content. I would personally vastly prefer users who can create great content to do that rather than spend their time here cleaning up after vandals. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. This user would be a great admin and I'm suprised he wasn't successfully nominated before. MathCool10 Sign here! 04:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - meets my standards. Bearian (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - After seeing Mufka's handing of a situation involving myself, I can do nothing but support! Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Not every candidate needs article-building skill. By requiring article-building, we severely limit the candidates for administrators who would otherwise be a benefit to the community. Strong support. --Neskaya talk 05:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Weak SupportCotton gin, and Pearl Harbor satisfy my doubts on article editing (although talk pages are useful) - The Weak part of my support stems from answer 17 A. While I appreciate the caution, Admin (WP:SELFPUB expert or not) is not a free pass to violate the basic rules. A calm down block and conversation on the users talk page would be more in line. That said, I think Mufka will do fine with the mop. — Ched ~ (yes?) 10:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Seems trustworthy to me. hmwithτ 17:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Synergy 20:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Meant to do this earlier: very good user. Acalamari 19:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. The supporters are more persuasive. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Weak support. Though this AfD does bring concern, I see the candidate as a net positive. DiverseMentality 20:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Oppose. Article building is atrocious. Tin Whistle Man (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indef blocked sockpuppet Secret account 14:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose. Building of articles is basic if not practised. More skill should be required to become an administrator. Neutralle 10:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. I have only looked at a few of Mufka's recent contributions, but in a few of these I detect a parochialism that I do not think would be a good trait in an administrator with the capability to delete things and, well, generally radiate "authority" towards other, and particularly new, users of diverse cultural backgrounds and interests beyond Mufka's own:
    • In Scandinavia, a julkalender (Swedish) or julekalender (Danish, Norwegian) is a term for a series shown on television during the 24 days before Christmas (see section in Advent calendar). In Sweden at least, these have been around for nearly 50 years and have a certain cultural significance (some are now classics of children's television). Somebody started an article at the term Julekalender, but Mufka made it into a redirect to a Norwegian TV-series (one particular case of such a series). At Talk:Julekalender, Mufka argued that "if there are no English sources of information about it, perhaps it is not notable to English readers." Many significant things outside the English-speaking world are naturally only going to have sources in other languages, and I believe that readers of the English Wikipedia are not all so narrow-minded that they completely lack interest in anything outside the English-speaking world.
    • Another example of the same attitude was flagging Anna Depenbusch for speedy deletion seven minutes after the article had been started, despite the fact that it already had a link to a fairly substantial article in Der Spiegel. Mufka later moved on to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Depenbusch, where he explicitly stated his reason as "No reliable sources in English provided". --Hegvald (talk) 06:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose for now on the basis of that deletion rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Depenbusch, is clear contrary to established V and RS policy, and is only a month ago. What are the nominees current views on this? What are his views about finding out about policy in unfamiliar areas? Or about willingness to follow policy with which he disagrees?DGG (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My intention in nominating the article for deletion was to establish that a sufficient claim of notability existed and that the article was, in fact, supported by verified sources. Since I could not verify the sources, it caused a problem as far as WP:V as well. I understand completely that English sources are not required per WP:VUE, but the claim of notability within the article was (and remains) very weak. Once other editors verified that the sources were valid and established notability, I promptly withdrew the nomination. If there was a sufficient claim of notability in the article from the outset, I would likely have tried to verify the sources through the article talk page or WP:RSN. I don't believe that this case illustrates any area in which I did not understand policy or an area in which I disagreed with policy. If I happen to disagree with policy, I will make my views known in the appropriate forum. If consensus supports a policy that I disagree with, then my role is to see that the policy is applied - not circumvented. I'm pretty sensitive to suggestions that I have weakness in my understanding or interpretation of policies. My ego isn't so big that I would dig in and defend what might be just my own ignorance. Even just a passing suggestion will usually lead me to spend a god-awful amount of time reviewing the policy to make sure I know what I know (and also to be sure that no new consensus or subtle nuance exists). I think that's a duty of any responsible editor. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral per his poor article building. Since his claimed "expertise" is doing for CSD, I believe he should have more content-building. I don't require RFA candidates to acquire FA or GA. However, how come hasn't he even have any single DYK for over two years? He has created very short 9 stubs" and I see his top 10 edited articles are "date list"s except Cotton gin and Pearl_Harbor: November 5, September 16, September 1 etc. In Cotton gin, his 99 edits are mostly reverting vandalism. I'm leaning toward oppose, but have not founded any critical faults in his contribution yet, so I stay here.--Caspian blue 19:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair to the candidate, I didn't even know how DYK worked for months here. I rescued an article and someone pointed the queue out to me. Though I see your point. Protonk (talk) 05:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral per Hegvald (who opposed). I think the statement "I would think that if there are no English sources of information about it, perhaps it is not notable to English readers" was a little alarming in itself, but the moving in and incorrectly redirecting on a topic which Mufka admittedly knew little about is an error which, when all put together, makes me a little unsure as to whether serious damage could be caused once the ability to delete is also available. My decision to not oppose is because the level of support clearly shows that the user is a good editor, and with it being clear that the nomination will pass, I hope that these views are taken onboard for his adminship. Esteffect (talk) 04:24, 6 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mufka_2&oldid=1142505444"