Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kosack

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

Kosack

Final (167/15/9); Closed as successful by Primefac (talk) at 17:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination

Kosack (talk · contribs) – Kosack is just what I like to see in an admin. He's been on the project for about 12 years, and has been particularly active over the past three. He's written a lot on "the beautiful game" including the featured article Cardiff City F.C. and numerous featured lists and good articles. He has a good track record at Articles for deletion, often explaining why articles on seemingly obscure footballers belong in an encyclopedia, and is a regular at Administrator intervention against vandalism, helping keep troublemakers away.

After recent disappointment with some of the nominations at WP:ORCP, several people were happy to see Kosack put their name up for adminship, and there was quite a bit of positive feedback. This gives me confidence that he's ready to run the RfA gauntlet, and hopefully you'll agree. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I happily accept the nomination. I would also like to confirm that I have never edited for pay and I have no alternate accounts. Kosack (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: The main administrative work I would look at is RPP and AIV where I have the most experience. As an editor focusing primarily on football related articles, I frequently see high profile pages that attract a large volume of attention, particularly when the topic suddenly becomes more newsworthy after being involved in major incidents. I also have experience in a few other areas including NPP and dealing with promotional or abusive user pages and usernames at CSD and WP:UAA.

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

A: My best contributions are all football related which accounts for the vast majority of my content work. I am approaching 100 DYKs and have over 30 GAs but my best work is probably my 12 FLs and 1 FA. Featured pages obviously receive a higher level of scrutiny so is a harder target to achieve. My FA is Cardiff City F.C. which took two attempts over the space of a year and a lot of hard work to be promoted so I am particularly proud of that one.

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: When I first joined Wikipedia, I was young and probably too immature and, although there were no major confrontations, I butted heads a few times because of this when I didn't get my own way. I walked away for several years and matured both on and off Wiki which allowed me to return with a familiarity that new users don't have the benefit of. I understand the collaborative process more now and look to resolve disputes in a much calmer fashion and will often actively look to withdraw from any confrontation rather than get involved in needless back and forth or escalation.

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Rosguill

4. In your opinion, under what circumstances (if ever) should a biography about a football player or coach be deleted provided that the subject appears to meet WP:NFOOTY?

Hi Rosguill, NFOOTY sets the bar at the player or manager featuring in a single match in a fully professional league. However, this is only a guideline and it is quite common for a player with a low amount of appearances, whose career has obviously come to an end, to be deleted by not meeting WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Additional questions from Espresso Addict

5. Could you point to some non-football (preferably non-sport) content that you have created or substantively edited, please?

Hi Espresso Addict, the main example of this that I can point to would be Lord Ninian Crichton-Stuart which I improved and took to GA status. Although I came across this article via football, as he had a connection with the club I support, he really had little involvement in the game. Kosack (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

6. The football notability requirements are very precise and football articles tend to be relatively simple and lack grey areas. How do you feel editing primarily in this content area has prepared you for administrative work?

I believe one of the main ways it has prepared me is to keep a cool head. People are passionate about the club or player they support and can sometimes react badly to their information being edited in some way. Also, counter-vandalism is a huge part of football editing. Articles can become targets in a split second when an incident occurs (match result, sending off etc). High profile matches like cup finals can often see numerous articles become targets and end up being protected, including player, club and match pages. Kosack (talk) 05:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Additional questions from StudiesWorld

7. If you are appointed as an admin, how will you use admin tools to address harassment and bullying?

Hi StudiesWorld, obviously it depends on the severity of the situation. In the most serious instances, if a user is making threats of violence or being extremely aggressive to another user, a block would be warranted. Admin tools may not be the first option in other cases, such as problems arising from content disputes. Dispute resolution, ANI and a potential WP:IBAN are other options to look at. If I received a complaint from a user that they felt they were being bullied, I would certainly look to interpose myself between them and the other editor. A safe editing environment is obviously what we should be providing. Kosack (talk) 08:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

8. If you are appointed as an admin, will you be willing to block WP:UNBLOCKABLES, if necessitated by the situation, or take other controversial actions?

If an editor's behaviour warrants a block, and all other appropriate avenues have been explored, then I believe I would. I don't think being an experienced editor is an excuse to behave badly. Kosack (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Additional questions from John M Wolfson

9. If you were placed in an unfamiliar situation that entailed the use of your admin tools, how would you deal with it?

Hi John, if I'm unfamiliar with the situation then I would seek out the expertise of a more experienced admin or user who has previous experience, whether by approaching them directly or raising the matter at an appropriate discussion board. I'm not the kind of user to act first and deal with consequences, I like to ensure I'm confident in what I'm doing. Kosack (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

10. What is your biggest regret from your time on Wikipedia, and how have you learned from it?

I wish I hadn't stepped away from the project and certainly not for as long. I feel I've lost a lot of time to make contributions to the site in taking that decision. As I explained in Q3, I believe I have matured now and rather than get too frustrated with a dispute, I have learnt to look more to resolving the issue rather than getting involved in needless back and forth. Kosack (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Reyk

11. What, in your opinion, is the most important of Wikipedia's policies and why?

Hi Reyk, I would say WP:BLP is the most important, along with the supporting policies such as WP:V and WP:NPOV. False information on articles regarding living people can have serious effects for the subject in the real world especially if that information is of a controversial nature. Obviously we should do our utmost to ensure any information is supported by reliable sources but it is especially important in these cases. Kosack (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Leaky

12. What guidance is available to you as an Admin. in closing issues raised at ANI?

Hi Leaky, I don't have any past history of editing ANI so I'm unfamiliar with the process of closing issues. If I had to do it, in a similar fashion to Q9, I'd look for guidance from an experienced editor to point me in the right direction. Reviewing the archives and talk pages would also be a good start to allow me to get a feel for previous precedents which should allow me to make an informed decision. Kosack (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Dolotta

13. What area or areas of the English Wikipedia do you find yourself to be the weakest?

Hi Dolotta, there are a few areas in which I have no experience at all, such as SPI and anything with a more than a surface deep technical inclination so those areas would be foreign to me and not somewhere I would be looking to get involved with. Kosack (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Additional questions from Amakuru

14. Given your answer to question #4 above, that NFOOTY is "only a guideline", and that there are circumstances where footballers meeting NFOOTY will nonetheless be deleted per GNG, do you stand by your !vote in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdoulaye Sanogo debate? And how would you have closed the discussion?  — Amakuru (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Amakuru, yes and no in some ways. Football biographies that meet WP:NFOOTY but are deleted typically feature a player that made a very low number of appearances (three or less roughly) that also had no significant career after this. There tends to be some grey area when it comes to active players, for example a player makes a single appearance but then sits in the reserves for a few years or something similar, Mats van Kins is an obvious example I can think of but there would be more. If I'm remembering Sanogo's situation correctly, he had made three appearances in an FPL and over ten in the season(s) before that in a lower division but had left his club team in 2016 and the sources appeared to have no record of where he went after this. However, Sanogo was 24 years old, perhaps just below the general mid age range for a footballer's career, so could still continue his career elsewhere which, is why I looked to vote keep. I have no issue with the delete vote, it was the right decision looking back. The gap between him leaving his previous club and his current situation was sizeable, too much so in retrospect, and there was no support of WP:GNG being met. Kosack (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

15. What edit(s) would you put on a resume? (This one was asked at my RFA and I quite liked it, but no worries if your contributions can't easily be summed up in one or two edits!)  — Amakuru (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

A boring answer probably I'm afraid but, my featured content work would certainly be the ones I'm most proud of. I'm partial to a featured list over anything else so I particularly enjoy getting those up to scratch. Kosack (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from RoySmith

16. How do you define WP:CIVIL behavior? Please give some specific examples (i.e. diffs) of on-wiki behavior which fall close to this line, but which you are willing to identify as being within, or not within, the bounds?

PS, in retrospect, I realize that sending you on a scavenger hunt for specific diffs may be silly. What I'm really looking for is to understand what you feel complies with WP:CIVIL and what doesn't. I'll leave it to you to answer that in whatever way makes sense.

Hi RoySmith, I must say I'm glad you dropped the diffs part of your question for the reason you stated! I would say being civil is a pretty simple thing. As editors, we are all really have the same goal which is for the improvement of the encyclopedia. Showing respect to other editors, talking to them in a manner which you yourself would want to be talked to, trying to gain an understanding of their viewpoint even if it contradicts your own and, most importantly, AGF. On a similar note, I believe WP:BRD is a useful thing to follow in content disputes to help diffuse potential flashpoints, having a user open dialogue instead of becoming involved in an edit war goes a long way. Also, forgetting previous grievances and not holding grudges is very beneficial especially when working in a particular area where you're likely to frequently come across the same editors.

Incivility would include the obvious things like personal attacks, abuse and harrasment. I would consider being disrespectful or condescending, especially in a demeaning way, to be rather uncivil and against AGF. Editors should feel comfortable to voice their opinions without having to worry about mockery or hostility. Kosack (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Usedtobecool

17. It seems that for years, you almost never replied to messages from other users on your talk page, including those that specifically asked you some questions. But recently, that seems to have changed to some extent. Would you like to elaborate on this change of approach in particular, and your views on usefulness of talk pages in general? How would you manage communication with a multitude of users that are sure to flock to your talk page asking/complaining about your administrative actions? Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 19:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Usedtobecool, just to clarify, I did respond to any messages I received just on the talk page of the editor who posted the message rather than my own. Recently, as you say, I've changed tact somewhat and instead started replying on my own talk page using the notification function to alert the other user, simply as it's probably a bit easier to maintain the flow of a discussion if it's all centralised in one place. This is something I would maintain if your example comes to fruition. Talk pages provide a valuable discussion space for users and something I'm more frequently trying to utilise to solve issues and discuss problems. Article talk pages are rarely used and posting a message there can often be overlooked. Kosack (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from GoldenRing

18. Can you tell me about something you've done on Wikipedia that you think was a mistake, how you realised it was a mistake and what you did about it afterwards? GoldenRing (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Golden Ring, when I originally joined Wikipedia, I would sometimes get bogged down in silly arguments. An interaction with another editor at Talk:Josh Magennis and the main article is one that always sticks in my kind and makes me cringe somewhat. Although I also took the issue to a discussion at WP:FOOTBALL, I also used some rather silly comparisons to whatever similar situation I could think of and didn't really point to any policy or consensus based decisions. It was obviously a poor way to go about getting a point across and probably just made the issue worse as, if I remember right, it prompted the other user to keep reverting.

These days I try to put more thought into a response rather than typing as fast as I can, even waiting a few hours or overnight in order to consider the options. Kosack (talk) 06:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Nick Moyes

19. I'm impressed by your AfD and Admin scores, but I see that you don't appear to have any history of supporting or welcoming new editors at, for example, the Help Desk or the Teahouse. I was wondering whether you think this kind of experience is essential for new administrators these days, and whether you can describe any experiences you've had in supporting new, confused (or sometimes even angry editors)? Any examples you can give to demonstrate how you have made such newcomers feel welcome, or handled belligerent editors, whilst ensuring they nevertheless adhere to our key policies, would be helpful.

Hi Nick, unfortunately I don't have a lot of experience at the help desk or teahouse, I have tried to be involved at both when I can but it often gets put on the back shelf due to content work, counter-vandalism or other things. I'm not sure if those places alone are essential for admins but the ability to interact with new or inexperienced editors certainly is important. As an administrator, there is more responsibility to be a representative of the site when dealing with new editors. Football articles can be a prime example of understanding new users as there are certain nuances that an inexperienced editor would be unaware of, for example the addition of transfers that are set for a certain date or have not been officially completed or the fact that an infobox should only contain league statistics and not cup competitions.

There are a few approaches I've had on my talk pages after reverting vandalism from new editors to show that I try to respond in a calm and polite fashion even when faced with potentially disruptive editing, such as 1, 2, 3 and 4. Kosack (talk) 06:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• Links for Kosack: Kosack (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Kosack can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Support

1. Support as nominator Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Support long term sensible editor who has demonstrated clearly that they can be trusted to use the sysop toolset wisely. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
3. Experienced editor who can be trusted with the toolset. I saw this coming a while ago and I’m very happy to be able to support early on having already looked at the candidate. Calm head who will do fine with the tools. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
4. Support They have been very active recently, and they have never once been blocked in their 12 years of editing. With their thousands of edits and clean past, I think they are fit to be an admin. Bill Williams (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
5. support - very good editor from every time I've ever had to deal with. Clearly would be good with the tools. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
6. Support, seen the candidate, here I have no issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
7. Clean record, seems familiar enough with RPP/UAA/AIV based on past requests which look largely reasonable, and seems fairly amicable in their interactions with other editors. I don't see any obvious reason to doubt their judgment. Mélencron (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
8. Support based on Ritchie333's endorsement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
9. Support RPP needs more administrative attention. There are excellent admins there right now, just not enough. Even the most blatant issues with recurring vandalism on BLPs sometimes can cycle for 11 or 12 hours without attention, which magnifies the workload for vandal fighters. Kosack's reason for wanting to be an admin, therefore, is good and, more important, his credentials are excellent. Chetsford (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
10. For the same reasons that led to Serial Number 54129's oppose, in my opinion, the English Wikipedia currently has an increased need for new administrators, and the candidate seems to be trustworthy and competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
11. Support - long term editor, who has created good content and is experienced enough to use a mop. --MrClog (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
12. Support per my new criteria for adminship: Until SanFranJanBansFram is satisfactorily resolved, I will support adminship for any editor in good standing who is nominated by an experienced editor in good standing. - MrX 🖋 17:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
13. Support, I think that they are responsible, trustworthy and kind. I don't have any reason to oppose. Clovermoss (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
14. Support Long term user has been around since 2007 created over 390 articles and with 62K edits.See no concerns and the project will gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
15. Support. We need more (qualified) admins —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
16. Support Experienced editor who would be a quality admin. SportingFlyer T·C 18:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
17. Support - great editor who I have worked with at WP:FOOTBALL for a number of years now and for whom I have a great deal of respect. GiantSnowman 18:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
18. Support Excellent contributions and the right attitude. If adminship is going to be no big deal, we need to embrace editors like Kosack stepping up to the tasks. --RexxS (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
19. Support Gog the Mild (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
20. Support precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
21. Strong support, because of - not despite - the ongoing crisis. Big thanks to Kosack for taking the plunge. GAB^gab 19:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
22. Support. Definately competent, and a good temperment; easy candidate to endorse as admin. Britishfinance (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
23. Support Why not? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
24. Support Seems like one with clue. We need clue right now. Katie^talk 19:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
25. Support Of course. DYK, AIV and RFPP are three needy areas, so your interest there will be of great help. — Maile (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
26. Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
27. Support - great track record, no better time than the present to strengthen the areas where the project needs the most help. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
28. Support based on endorsements by several users who I think trustworthy. cygnis insignis 20:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
29. Support I have seen Kosack around at WP:FOOTBALL and I have no concerns. JMHamo (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
30. Support. I've found nothing that bothers me. Go mop. Yintan  20:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
31. Support Looks good to me. ST47 (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
32. Support thanks for stepping forward at a time many would be stepping back. Mccapra (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
33. support good number of edits--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
34. Support – This is clearly a qualified candidate. Mz7 (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
35. Support Kosack knows what's up. No concerns. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
36. Support – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
37. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
38. Support. quality contributor. Opposes not convincing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
39. Support: from all the spot checks I did, Kosack has a very pleasant temperament. They are consistently doing excellent work, as demonstrated by all their DYKs, GAs and FLs. They regularly deal with vandalism and new users and I can see no sign of them biting any newbies, so I'm sure the tools will be used with care and put to good use. Kudos to the candidate for being brave enough to sign up for an RfA. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 22:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
40. Support Trustworthy editor with good temperament. JohnThorne (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
41. Support. Sure. Mackensen (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
42. Support Experienced trustworthy editor. I am One of Many (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
43. Stephen 23:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
44. Support ~SS49~ {talk} 23:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
45. Support no reason to oppose. Banedon (talk) 23:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
46. Support. Candidate would provide administrative attention to articles on subjects they are knowledgeable about. — Newslinger talk 00:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
47. Support Per Ritchie. I disagree with Mkativerata's oppose reasoning, which seems to be both out of place and out of time (which then led me to notice, not surprisingly, that this too is a legacy editor who has returned to editing just this month after many years of absence). During their years of absence, in my opinion, the collaborative nature of this project has probably changed in many ways Mkativerata may not comprehend, unless they spend some more months editing here. Defending the inclusion of an article, even if based on SNG, is specifically encouraged; and there's no mandatory requirement that the weight of maintaining that article falls on the creator or the person defending its inclusion. If this was the case during your times, well, I'm sorry for that; but that's no reason to oppose a credit-worthy editor at an RfA. I also see added oppose by Seraphimblade, an administrator who is self-admittedly (as advertised on their user page) an expressive deletionist. So there you go. Thanks, Lourdes 00:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
48. Support An asset to the community.– Gilliam (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
49. Support Seems worthy. SemiHypercube 00:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
50. Support - competent and interacts well with others. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
51. Support pending now with satisfactory response to my questions. We might very well have a disproportionate amount of soccer bios, but the proper response to that IMO would be to create more articles on other stuff to even it out. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
52. Support Why not? -FASTILY 01:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
53. Support ! – SJ + 02:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
54. Support Kosack is an extremely helpful contributor to football articles and also easy to work with. I trust the assessments above of his judgement in other fields, which would be consistent with my own interactions with him. SounderBruce 03:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
55. Support The kind of editor I like to see at RfA. Kudos to Lourdes for the spiel on inclusionism Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
56. Support per WP:NOBIGDEAL. Guettarda (talk) 03:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
57. Support Experienced, great contributor to articles, good temperament and interactions with others. Intends to work in areas where more administrators and faster actions are often needed. Also especially per Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}, Mélencron, User:Chetsford and Lourdes. Donner60 (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
58. Support _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
59. Support Can't see any reason not to. Deb (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
60. Support Appreciate the insightful comments about how they have grown in maturity in the time since they were new - admins who can remember being new and making mistakes, and know that people can learn and grow, are a good thing. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
61. Support Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
62. Support with hope that they will continue to concentrate on non-footy topics, where we are more than over-blessed. --Orange Mike | Talk 08:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
63. Support - My interactions with the candidate have been entirely positive and I see no reason why he should not make an excellent administrator. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
64. Strong Support I had offered to nominate but wasn't sure how I felt about nominating a candidate at a time when so many admins I respect are resigning. Looks an excellent candidate. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC) I hope there's still an active Crat who hasn't resigned at the end of this to close the RfA, as I'll need to recuse. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
65. Support experienced editor. Tolly4bolly 09:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
66. Support I would have liked to have taken this opportunity to suggest to the candidate that there is a whole world of Wikipedia articles outside of football for them to explore and nourish, but I honestly feel they wouldn't believe me. In any event, their work on the Cardiff article is impressive. Regards,  Spintendo  09:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
67. Support per supporters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
68. Support clean track record, has done some real content creation and has a clue. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
69. Support Lectonar (talk) 10:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
70. Support Seems reasonable and hard working. scope_creep^Talk 11:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
71. Support , per nom.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
72. Support. I see no reason to believe this user will abuse the tools. Peacock (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
73. Support No red flags net pos. Experience in all the areas I'd want to see. -- ferret (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
74. Support great content creator. The opposes are ridiculous. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
75. Support. I'm not qualified to assess his aptitude for deletion policy, but a lot of people voting above have my confidence. - Dank (push to talk) 15:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
76. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
77. Support - I have no reason to believe this user will abuse the admin tools. Kosack has been a value-added in this project for a long time. Happy to see this user take on this new responsibility. MX (✉ • ✎) 18:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
78. Support No evidence they will misuse the tools or abuse the position.--MONGO (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
79. Support Not a perfect candidate. Am prepared to take the risk. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
80. Support Appears trustworthy and competent. Jschnur (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
81. Support no concerns at all. Net benefit to the project. Utter nonsense like opposing because (apparently) Wikipedia has too many football bios is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen at RFA. Kosack is considerate, diligent and just so happens to work on niche football articles. This is no different to working on Japanese voice artist articles or mid-19th century pottery articles. Get over it, and realise that Kosack is a great contributor. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
82. Support – I disagree with Mkativerata's opposing point; I don't believe an editor's rationale for voting "keep" or "delete" should have any bearing on their qualifications for adminship unless it is directly indicative of a lack of policy knowledge. That does not appear to be the case here, so it has no bearing on my support. We need more administrators and Kosack seems to be fully qualified. Kurtis ^(talk) 22:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
83. Support Anyone may argue for whatever position at afd they support according to their own view. That does not apply to how an admin closes. It is very much a problem is when a closing admin closes according to their own judgment about what the community ought to be doing, and that doesn't seem likely here. The compatibility of the candidate with the general consensus on individual articles shows that they judge appropriately. DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
84. Support Long-term editor, strong content contributions, appropriate temperament. I consider it absurd to oppose based on the editor expressing mainstream opinions on matters where a clear community consensus exists. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
85. Support Experienced editor with lots of quality contributions. Appears to have good temperament. Noah^Talk 00:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
86. The candidate has an FA, which always impresses me and while their main focus is on another sort of FA, their deletion tagging shows both that they have spread their Wiki activity beyond things under the purview of the Football Association. I would have thought that their prodding of articles on footballers who haven't played professionally would deal with the concerns of those who worry that they might be too inclusionist. I did advise against running while this crisis is still in full spate, but to my relief most of the effect of that is in the neutral section. Once small cavil, a couple of your G3 tags should in my view have been G10s, but one of them was a long while ago. ϢereSpielChequers 00:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
87. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 01:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
88. A fine addition. El_C 01:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
89. Support Seems great and would seemingly be active, which is what we need. WOPR (talk) 01:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
90. Support. A good potential addition. bd2412 T 02:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
91. Support Solid, experienced contributor, good record, and effective communicator with a good temperment. I see no issues with the areas they wish to contribute to as an admin. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
92. Support as a qualified candidate and no concerns. Also per my comments here at Valereee's ongoing RfA as the same situation is unfortunately playing out here as well. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
93. Support per above. Seren_Dept 05:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
94. Support. I see no reason not to. Sasquatch t|c 07:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
95. Support. I see no reason to oppose, certainly not the Fram thing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
96. Support. Qualified candidate. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
97. Support I don't usually pile on supports when the outcome looks almost certian, but at present I'd like to see as many new admins as possible, and I see no reason not to support here. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 10:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
98. Support I had no idea who Kossack is, and in these dramah-ridden days I see that as a good thing in an admin. A look over their contribs (a field where I have zero overlap, so I'd not seen them before) is very positive too. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
99. Support easily meets my RfA criteria. Iffy★Chat -- 11:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
100. Support Definitely deserves to be an admin. VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 12:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
101. Support after review. As I said in the other RFA running right now, the candidate should be judged on his individual merits and should not have to deal with oppose or neutral votes just because of an unrelated controversy elsewhere on Wikipedia. He seems like a sensible person who I trust will not receive yellow or red flags while working at FOOTY. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
102. Support Why not? Double sharp (talk) 13:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
103. I endorse the nomination statement. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
104. Support Good candidate. Jianhui67 ^T★C 15:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
105. Support Even if they are a Cardif fan. On a more serious not the editor doesn't have any major red flags. While I've seen some of the neutrals and opposes below based on the current issues our community is experiencing with the WMF I don't think we should be penalizing this or any other editor who runs for RFA during these turbulent times. (Go Manchester United!) --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 15:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
106. Support. Although I'm not interested in football, I am impressed by the responses he has given.--Ipigott (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
107. Support WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
108. Support ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
109. Support - You don't learn to walk by following rules. You learn by doing, and by falling over. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
110. Support. Solid candidate. Deserves the mop. Rollidan (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
111. Support adminds need the trust of the community and this candidate has it, unlike the ironically named T&S. I am not going to withold support for a worthy candidate just because I disagree with the actions of wanna-be autocrats. Other opposes appear to be based on disagreements about outcomes rather than the candidate's conduct, application of policy or reading of consensus. Find bruce (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
112. Support as they meet my criteria and the opposes seem frankly nitpicky. Footballer inclusionism? Ifnord (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
113. Support Long have I wanted to see Kosack run for admin, and believe that they will use the tools admirably! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
114. Support. SNG/GNG issues are not going to be sorted out in this RfA, but I trust that Kosack will be a good admin regardless. – bradv🍁 02:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
115. Support - The candidate's answer to my question checks out (albeit creating exchange pairs like these) (that look designed to challenge the mantle of The Rambling Man :D ;P ). Personally, I think it's good that they've changed the tact but am too new to judge objectively the merit of one vs. the other. This talk shows, IMO, that candidate is more into upholding policy than saving pages about obviously unnoteworthy footballers like the opposers almost led me to believe. Abdoulaye Sanogo discussion has two other admins making the same argument as the candidate. I don't see how making the same argument as long-established admins is a bad judgement as to what's appropriate argument in an AfD, nor how it would make it so much worse to have one more admin who sees it that way. In the end, that should be a policy discussion, not an RfA one. Since there have been no other concerns raised, I see no reason not to support as per NOBIGDEAL even though I hadn't encountered the candidate or their work before this RfA.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Usedtobecool (talk • contribs) 03:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
116. Support - established editor who will enhance the encyclopedia as an admin. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
117. Weak Support - different views on a major notability issue, and the thanks log setup is a tad odd, but I still believe Kosack will be a net addition to the mop corps. Nosebagbear (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
118. Support Experienced, trustworthy editor. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
119. Support I held off a little while on making a comment here because the WP:NFOOTY concerns do slightly bother me. However, it's apparent that (despite my personal interpretation of WP:NSPORT which I mentioned in the general comments below) there is a far more widespread lack of clarity or consistency regarding the relationship between GNG and SNGs, and indeed the wording varies considerably from SNG to SNG. Given that, and given a lack of any other suggestion that the candidate wouldn't be able to assess consensus when closing AFDs, I don't think it's right for me to hold their application of WP:NFOOTY against them. Hugsyrup (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
120. Support - The answer to question 13 is a bit concerning, but doesn't hinder the rest of Kosack's contributions. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
121. Support. I would have been happier with a stronger statement in response to my question about civility, but I'm fine with their answer. I think WP:FOOTY is absurdly inclusive, but I have no concerns that somebody can wear different hats at different times (i.e. football fanatic vs admin) and do both well; the answer to question 4 satisfies me on that count. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
122. Support - I agree with the concerns about SNGs, but don't see why we should project our frustration with that onto Kosack in particular. Hopefully Kosack will be mindful of the reservations expressed here before using admin tools regarding deletion of a football-related article. AfD stats are very good, and do not resemble a "radical inclusionist" mindset (as much as I hate to use that reductive term). In short, I haven't seen any compelling reason not to support, and I hear we need admins. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
123. Support. I have run into the candidate a bunch of times. I have found them to have a calm demeanor while being genuinely invested in article improvement. The fact that they are also self-aware of their shortcomings, e.g. question 13, is also good. epicgenius (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
124. Support No behaivioral problems, which is what I believe is the most important thing for potential administrators. The NFOOTY things are certainly a valid concern but this is the wrong venue for that discussion. Trialpears (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
125. Support Experienced and hardworking editor. None of the Oppose comments impress me as important now.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
126. Support If we want to fix SNGs, and in particular NFOOTY, let's do so. But I'm not prepared to hold this candidate responsible for them. CThomas³ (talk) 01:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
127. Support – Great candidate with a history of outstanding work. Seems ready for administrative role, and their answers to the questions asked of them demonstrate that they are adequately experienced and mature enough to deal with the issues that admins will inevitably face. I have no serious concerns, and also I concur with the opinions of other experienced editors above. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 02:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
128. Support after checking various logs and deleted content this seems to be a suitable candidate. I am not so concerned about soccer inclusionism, even of there are a huge number of articles on this topic, as if the admin tools are available they will open up more things to do. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
129. Support - Very good experience.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
130. Support - Responsible editor that I would trust with the mop. Loopy30 (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
131. Support – Per nom. –FlyingAce^✈hello 18:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
132. Support - I tend to believe that any editor who has demonstrated their good-faith and an even temperament should be granted the administrative tools upon request. Kosack seems to be such an editor. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 19:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
133. Support Seen Kosack around for years and never in a negative way. I'm sure they'd make good use of the tools. Number 57 20:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
134. Support - consistent performance over many seasons. Will be happy to see them promoted. :) the wub "?!" 22:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
135. Support - A great record and nothing suspicious. William2001^(talk) 03:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
136. Support no concerns, the candidate's view on NFOOTY is not especially important unless there's an indication it will affect the impartiality of their closures. – Teratix ₵ 06:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
137. Absolutely. — 🦊 07:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
138. Support impressive AfD log and admin score. Edit count and duration all show that candidate is experienced. Bring the mop. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
139. Yes, I think so. GoldenRing (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
140. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
141. Support Neither WP:FRAM nor WP:NFOOTY are relevant to this editor's impressive record. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 12:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
142. Support. While the opposition have legitimately pointed out flaws in this candidate's contributions, I think he is still a net positive. We're losing administrators on the net, so this request for adminship is welcome despite the narrow aim of the candidate. Deryck C. 15:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
143. Support - I have no concerns about Kosack's past editing experience, and I believe that they will function as an impartial and even-keeled administrator. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
144. Support. Regarding WP:FRAM - either the candidate is experienced and competent and clueful enough to be an admin, or they aren't. The standards should not be higher because of current crises, nor should they be lower. I find the candidate meets my usual expectations, and so I support this candidacy. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
145. Support Reasonable, trustworthy candidate who will benefit the project with the tools. Spencer^T•C 17:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
146. Many editors whose opinions I trust are in this column and a quick look at the boxes that I typically check to make my decision seems to check out. I support this candidate. Good luck! Strikerforce^Talk 18:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
147. Support The Fram situation is completely irrelevant and the football inclusionism is a very minor concern. The editor is qualified and ready. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
148. Support Antrocent (♫♬) 20:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
149. Support based on general project dedication and competence, and the continuing need for more administrators. ~ mazca ^talk 02:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
150. Support per my !vote at the Valeree RFA: because of FRAMBAN, we need admins to replace the ones who have thrown their tools out of the Fram. Further, I think the whole issue with the soccer-player articles is not so much due to this user as it is to unresolved conflicts between NFOOTY and GNG that need to be ironed out. Daniel Case (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
151. Support CLCStudent (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
152. Support No issues. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
153. Support Seems well-suited. Collect (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
154. Support. First, I want to say that I think opposing or going neutral based on the timing of the RfA seems a valid reason to me. Some very respected admins and crats stepped down for important reasons, and it seems a bit disrespectful to appear to fill their shoes. On the other hand, I find the argument that regular life goes on even in wartime to be a more important consideration, so I've ended up in support. I looked at the AfDs, and they are not a strong enough reason for me to oppose; the candidate's comments seem polite and within existing community norms about notability (whether those norms are right or wrong). Someone who has been around this long, with a strong record of content creation, seems well-qualified to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
155. Support Experienced and capable. I have no concerns. —Rutebega (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
156. Support not much to say aside from my usual at RfA’s, which is: don’t F it up! N.J.A. | talk 00:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
157. Support No reason to believe that Kosack will abuse the tools. Yeah the over-proliferation of footballer articles is kind of annoying, but it's a much, much bigger issue than one user. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
158. Support. Thanks for stepping up. Haukur (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
159. Support. There are definitely times when additional hands at AIV and RFPP would help. Giving the tools would likely be a net positive for the project; also, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Aoi (青い) (talk) 06:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
160. Support - best of luck Willbb234 (talk) 08:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
161. Support - I said I'd probably move here in the end, and as it's the final day I shall do so. Everything points to this candidate being a big WP:NETPOSITIVE, and we need more admins in the stable. I think the answer to my first question just about allays my worries over the NFOOTY issue, that they won't go against community norms when closing discussions. But I hope the candidate will take on board my comment in the discussion section below, regarding possible reputational damage to the project if we're seen to be giving a green light to borderline male football players when we don't afford the same luxury to female scientists. Finally, the oppose !votes citing FRAM are unpersuasive to me and as much as everyone is entitled to their opinion, I find it unfortunate to blame someone unrelated to that whole saga for deciding to step up and help the project now. So, assuming nothing astonishing happens in the next few hours, a big welcome to the admin corps to Kosack, congratulations on your excellent corpus of featured content (which you highlighted in the resume question above). Keep up the great work, and I wish you well in your adminship.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
162. Support: I agree with Amakuru. Thanks for making yourself available; you make a great admin! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
163. Support -- Seems reasonably qualified to me. -- Dolotta (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
164. Support Anyone foolish brave enough to accept a nomination for adminship during the FRAMBAN incident is competent enough to be an admin. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
165. Support Thanks for your answer to Q19. I believe you'll be a net positive, though beware using your new tools to promote your own specialist interest area, as hinted at in a couple of the opposes below. I would have liked to have seen stronger examples of how you have handled or supported problematic editors, but this will no doubt follow once you gain the tools. The essential thing for the next generation of admins is to respect the other editor as a person, no matter whether they are editing appropriately. Best wishes in all you do. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
166. Support:- Why not. FitIndia ^Talk 15:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
167. Support As I said in my other RFA !vote, Wikipedia needs fresh admins and I don't see true reasons for opposing.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose unfortunately, per this discussion on the RFA talk page (which your nominators should, frankly have noted and prepared you for); particularly this from WereSpielChequers ("nyone seriously thinking of running for RFA or RFB would do well to wait a little while longer. I doubt anyone could run now without some questions relating to current events, and I suspect that there may be no answer that wouldn't lose some votes"), and Wehwalt who said, "I think it would be more difficult than usual for an RFA to succeed right now. At least some would vote against to keep faith with those who have given up their tools"). Basically, let WP:FRAM blow over first; nothing personal of course. As the feller said, "it's business, Sonny, not personal". ——SerialNumber54129 17:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

   Discussion moved to the talk page. Primefac (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

2. Sorry. Wikipedia is starting to suffer greatly from footballer biography inclusionism. AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abdoulaye_Sanogo and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cody Claver show that the candidate is likely only to exacerbate the problem as an administrator. Quotes like "Keep - meets WP:NFOOTY having played in a fully professional league." (end of contribution) and "I would suspect Malian or Qatari based sources may provide more in-depth coverage." suggest that this candidate either ignores the general notability guideline completely or gives it whatever cursory treatment is necessary to wave through all semi-professional footballers. Now, why is this such a big problem, worth opposing over? We have almost two decades worth of footballer biographies atrophying at an astonishing rate. One of the AfDs above was closed as no consensus. So we now have an article on Cody Claver. Who will update it? Who will protect it from vandalism? How do we even know when he retires? Or dies? Or gets the HBO qualification, whatever that is, that the article for some unknown reason says he intends to get? I won't support an administrator whom I consider likely to be deciding biographical AfDs who doesn't have a proper understanding not only of what our deletion policies say but a deeper understanding of why those deletion policies are so important. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

   Discussion moved to the talk page. Primefac (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

3. Oppose per Mkativerata (and pointedly not per SN54129, with whom I quite disagree). Those AfDs are relatively recent. "Keep, passes NBLAHBLAH" is an entirely irrelevant argument in an AfD if whether the subject passes the GNG is challenged. SNGs are a rule of thumb for when subjects are likely to pass the GNG, not a substitute for actually passing it. I do not believe at this time the candidate could properly evaluate AfD arguments and discount invalid ones, when they've recently made invalid ones themself. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Mkativerata and Seraphimblade and despite Lourdes' comment. Contribution count, even if impressive, is a poor subsitute for admin skills, and this nominee is not very convincing in this regard. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose per most of the above, including SN54129. Eric Corbett 14:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
6. Oppose Basically not yet. Very few requests in the Wikipedia namespace. In light of his critique in deletion discussions he started, some of his own articles, including his very first one, should be better referenced.--Snaevar (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
7. Oppose as per User:Kashmiri and User:Snaevar. His experience seems narrow.Ingratis (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
8. Oppose as per the above. Hlevy2 (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
9. Oppose unless and until FRAMGATE is sorted out. This is not the time to be discussing new prospects for adminship when it is evident the WMF clearly does not trust and is willing to star-chamber them. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 03:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

   As far as I can tell, they haven't been involved in FRAM. Why should adminships be put on hold just because there's dramahs going on elsewhere? Fram is one specific admin, their ban is not indicative of the WMF's opinions toward other admins. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 02:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

10. Oppose Willingness to cite SNG's to keep articles in cases where there is no realistic prospect that the GNG will ever be reached is not compatible with the judgement necessary to delete articles AlasdairEdits (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
11. Oppose - I find the NFOOTY concerns to be perfectly valid and in my mind, very concerning, especially in light of the inequities between SNGs raised by Amakuru. I think that we will also have to tighten NFOOTY, in particular, and generally, make more clear the relationship between SNGs and the GNG. StudiesWorld (talk) 11:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
12. Oppose- — Sachinthonakkara (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC) (UTC).
13. Oppose. No judgement on merits and demerits of the candidate. Timing of the RFA suggests currrent crisis has been exploited with expectation that fears of losing admins will help. They did indeed and this RFA is going to pass. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 13:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

    AhmadLX, "exploitation" seems to be an unethical action that is done on purpose. Is there any proof for this? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

    No, that's why there is word suggests. And this has nothing to do with ethics. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

    Sheesh. What ever happened to the good ol' AGF? Pichpich (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

14. Oppose - Seraphimblade's rational. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 10:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC) (and i repaired the numbering in the comments above)
15. Oppose per Mktiverata. Reyk _YO! 13:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral No opinion on the candidate though I am almost always favorably disposed to candidates supported by the nom. And I respectfully disagree with my colleague Serial Number 54129's opposition and their rational above. However, I will admit that I find the timing to be inopportune given recent and ongoing events and I don't feel comfortable directly participating in an RfA in the present circumstances. These are difficult days for the community and we all have to act in obedience to our respective consciences. For now, mine is telling me to sit out RfAs until the current unpleasantness is resolved. That said, I bow in respect to all of my fellow editors regardless of where you stand and I particularly thank the candidate for stepping up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

   As per my response to SN54129 above, even in wartime, people get married and babies are born; I don't think it is fair to blame Kosack for the WMF's actions. Even if WMF tell us all to "get stuffed" post the ArbCom letter, and everybody leaves and Wikipedia becomes a version of Reddit, Kosack still deserves to know after their years of long service, whether they made the grade or not. That is all Kosack is asking, and I think we owe it to Kosack to give an answer. Britishfinance (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

   Hi BF. Thanks for the note. My objection is to the timing, not the RfA. But as I said above, these are challenging times and all we can do is what we think right while respecting the reality that not everybody is going to agree on that subject. Regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

   Thanks AO and fair enough; what I meant about "even in wartime, people get married and babies are born". This affair may go one for months, or conclude by next Friday; regardless, I think we should give the candidates our views? Britishfinance (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

   (edit conflict)@Britishfinance:, and Addy, I fixed the indents to make my vote #2. No violation of editing other's comment policy —usernamekiran(talk) 23:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

   indent fixed by Primefac too. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

2. per Addy. I know the candidate. If this was in different circumstances, i would have supported/will support. But currently, i cant. It is my humble suggestion to withdraw nomination, and run the RfA after current issues are resolved. But thats just my opinion. Still, i am firmly neutral though. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
3. Neutral Wikipedia needs more admins. The WMF deserves fewer admins. Not voting but I wish the candidate well. Fish+Karate 06:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

   Neutral - I'm currently slightly leaning oppose, due to the NFOOTY record and comments, but I am happy with the response to my questions. I will probably move before the close of the RfA. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

   Moved to Oppose. StudiesWorld (talk) 11:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

4. Neutral Candidates can control the timing of their RfAs and in my opinion they should have waited. I cannot support in the current circumstances.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

   I'll park myself here for now, because I share Mkativerata's concern about applying the WP:NFOOTY guideline to non-notable subjects. I would like an assurance that if and when Kosack is promoted, and particularly when they come to perform AFD closes, they understand that subject-specific notability guidelines exist to provide guidance in how to apply the notability rules in particular scenarios. They do not in any way replace the WP:GNG, if only for practical reasons - if there aren't sources covering the subject then we can't possibly hope to write an article on it that meets WP:V. I will probably wind up supporting anyway, as the candidate ticks most of the boxes and is a net positive, but would appreciate some assurances in this regard.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC) - Moving to Support  — Amakuru (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

5. Neutral. WP:NFOOTY etc. Shearonink (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
6. Neutral pretty much per Ad Orientem - Kosack sounds like an excellent candidate however due to the FRAM issues right now I cannot support any RFA, It's a shame these weren't held off a few months once the dust had settled, Regardless of my vote I wish you the best of luck here. –Davey2010^Talk 12:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
7. Neutral. Mkativerata's oppose rationale really swayed me. Not enough to oppose, but enough to not support. So I'm stuck here. -- œ^™ 07:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
8. Neutral - per above. -- CptViraj (📧) 17:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
9. Neutral would be a good asset to the community, but the concerns raised by some of the opposes (excluding the rational posited by SN54129) make me reluctant to support --DannyS712 (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

General comments

• The application of most subject-specific notability guidelines (SNGs; including WP:NFOOTY) in conjunction with the general notability guideline has always been a bit ambiguous. Quoting DGG from Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2019 § Request for comment regarding PORNBIO: "We can define a SNG however we choose: as an alternative, as a replacement, as a restriction, as a liberalization. The current way, of defining it as a presumption is Imo essentially meaningless, because it leads to a debate at every individual AfD about what the [relevant] meaning should be." — Newslinger talk 00:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Is it really that ambiguous? Q2 of the FAQs on WP:ATH seems to be fairly clear that GNGs must still be met. However, in my (limited) AFD experience I'd say that approach is quite rarely applied and even quite experienced users seem to take the view that meeting an SNG is enough on its own. I don't know if that means consensus has changed, or that lots of people are mistaken, or perhaps it's just that I'm misunderstanding the FAQ! Hugsyrup (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Notability (sports), first paragraph: The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. The word or clearly indicates that either of the criteria is sufficient in itself. If that is not enough, the nutshell notice explains that the special criteria are a proxy for general notability. I.e. If the subject meets the special criteria, they imply a strong probability that an exhaustive search will find sufficient general notability evidence. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The relationship between the various SNGs and the GNG has varied from time to time and guideline to guideline, and there is no altogether consistent consensus. I continue to prefer my previous position, though I must admit that support for it has not generally been increasing. But each AfD is decided by the people there at the time. DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Note the Soccerway external Link in the article James Demetriou does mention the Nationality Cyprus and Country of birth Australia and does show in the lineup in a match for Sydney Olympic FC ] between Sydney Olympic FC and Perth SC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• SNGs including WP:FOOTY ,WP:NCRIC ,WP:NBASKETBALL exist to provide for the inclusion of certain defined subjects that cannot immediately be shown to pass GNG . An SNG provides for a presumption of notability, not a presumption of non-notability An SNG cannot be used to exclude/delete an article when the subject passes GNG, but the reverse is patently absurd because that would negate the entire reason for the existence of SNGs.Particurly for young players who are currently playing. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• For anyone who's forgotten the last-controversy-but-one, it was raised by several people that it is bad optics for us to have numerous articles on barely-notable sportspeople, while refusing to cover African-American academics who've been involved in major science projects. Now I disagree that the deletion of Phelps is in itself wrong, and I don't think the incident necessarily brings Wikipedia into disrepute, as some have alleged. But if we're to maintain the moral highground in that debate, and be able to defend such matters to an independent observer, we need to make damn sure that we're not giving a lower bar to entry to bitpart lower-league football players than we do to female scientists. As such, I cannot accept that NFOOTY trumps GNG in deciding that a particular player should be kept. We must be scrupulous and consistent in requiring quality independent sources to establish notability, and I believe that anyone wishing to assess deletion discussions should recognise this.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• The problem we are tussling with is founded on the fact that there are two distinctly different types of SNGs. The first are those which Peter refers to, where a topic meeting the SNG suggests a strong probability that sufficient sources will eventually be found to meet GNG. These operate as a proxy for GNG.
  The second kind are in areas where there exists a systematic bias which means that topics in that particular area systematically receive less attention from independent published sources than far less eminent subjects in other areas. For example, even prominent academics are far less likely to receive coverage than even minor figures who are entertainers. That results in WP:NPROF having the text "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources". NPROF is an alternative to GNG, as it introduces a different criterion (the impact of their work on the field) as a substitute for "significant coverage in independent sources".
  It would be useful to make clearer that the first kind merely suggest (rather than establish) notability as we define it, while the second kind do establish notability when met, because we recognise the need to counter systematic bias in certain areas. --RexxS (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2019 (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.