Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Kosack

SN's oppose
{{abot}}
 * 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 {{noping|WereSpielChequers) ("{{tq|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 {{noping|Wehrwalt}} who said, "{{tq|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".  ——  SerialNumber  54129  17:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with whether the candidate can be trusted with the tools. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Wugapodes [t{{sup|h}}ɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 17:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * {{u|Serial Number 54129}}, Do you personally oppose this person having the mop? If not, and you are predicting the future, please don't write other people's votes for them. Let them come in here and say what they want. If you are afraid of this user having a really rough RfA (which you might be, that's a valid concern), then maybe it would have been better to contact them more privately. Users have a right to attempt an RfA regardless of whatever drama (frama?) is going on. Prometheus720 (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * C'mon Serial, this is obviously an oppose that crats would discount, for obvious reasons. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * An entirely disruptive oppose designed to prove some sort of point which I hope the editor will urgently reconsider and delete. Otherwise, that a crat or admin - if we have any left - will remove to talk. Leaky caldron (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As per my response to you on the Valeree RfA, 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) 19:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If your opposes are cut-and-paste, why shouldn't my responses be? So: Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.  Y intan  20:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So, you oppose because you expect Framagate to result in opposes? Tigraan {{sup|Click here to contact me }} 08:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Mkativerata's oppose

 * 1) Sorry. Wikipedia is starting to suffer greatly from footballer biography inclusionism. AfDs like Articles_for_deletion/Abdoulaye_Sanogo and 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)
 * Articles for deletion/Cody Claver closed as "no consensus" and the closer said "This is the age-old tale of the feud between the GNG and the SNGs, and we will not settle that score today." To address the wider concern, as you can see from Kosack's AfD stats, the summary says "Without considering "No Consensus" results, 97.8% of AfD's were matches and 2.2% of AfD's were not." and that Articles for deletion/Abdoulaye Sanogo is the only AfD that didn't go Kosack's way in two years. That suggests that Kosack's views on what articles are suitable is aligned very well with the community in general, even it appear to be against specific people on the other side of the debate. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Your point being? That we have a corner of wikipedia running roughshod over deletion policy and should elect from their number another to have the delete button? Articles for deletion/James Demetriou (2nd nomination) is another example. Kosack is on the "winning" side. But all he says is "Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL having played in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues, namely a Cypriot Cup match between Karmiotissa and AEK Larnaca." Just one match. A cup match. Neither he nor anyone else asks about the general notability guideline despite the nominator expressly and correctly raising it. The result, almost two years later, is an article that is hopelessly out of date. The article James_Demetriou says that he transferred to Sydney Olympic in 2018. But he isn't on their squad list. What's he doing? Who knows? The statement in the first sentence of the article is certainly out of date: "James Andreas Demetriou (born 14 August 1995) is an Australian-born Cypriot professional footballer who plays as a forward for Sydney Olympic." But he isn't. That's totally wrong. It's an untenable situation occurring on massive scale. And you want to exacerbate it. --Mkativerata (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * An additional note: I think it is exceptionally poor form to send "thanks" to those who support your RfA, and only to supporters, while it is on foot: . I'm particularly concerned about administrators who treat the encyclopaedia as a back-scratching political club. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Utter nonsense. UTTER nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The idea that WP:NFOOTY should be less inclusive is a question for there, not an individual user. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC).
 * Huh? Thanking someone for supporting something you're doing... is bad? Because everyone deserves a thanks? What purpose is there, even, to look at the thanks log here? I don't at all see thanking someone as "back-scratching" (what a trivial back-scratch that would be). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Aww. I many times write "Thanks" at the end of my statements while conversing with editors. Feel guilty already. Lourdes  16:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)