Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Kostas20142

Refactored commentary from the RfA page

 * I can't remember the last time I saw an RfA with a 4/4/4 tally. Lepricavark (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Votes made after closing
The following were added after the RFA was closed:
 * 1) Support - the lack of experience claims made by others below are unconvincing, and demonstrate the standards inflation that has plagues RFA for a decade. There is no evidence that the candidate would be less than  net positive with the mop, and so we should give it to them.  Tazerdadog (talk) 3:50 pm, Today (UTC−6)
 * 2) Support - this is likely going to have the effect of a moral support, since it seems the unsubstantiated-"not now"-oppose avalanche has already begun, and it's rare for even a very well suited candidate to come back from it. But this is not solely moral support - I do actually believe you would make a fine administrator right now. At least I see no reason to think that you would deliberately abuse the tools nor use them incompetently and cause harm. You've shown substantial cluefulness considering your lack of experience and a willingness to be open to input, and nearly every admin candidate is inexperienced (except those who were desysopped, but that's a whole other story). I do hope you take feedback from the opposers who bothered to offer constructive criticism, and hope to see Requests for adminship/Kostas20142 2 some appropriate time in the future. Best of luck. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 3:50 pm, Today (UTC−6)
 * I edit-conflicted with closing. The 'crats can do what they like with this, but if it's removed I'd appreciate if you leave a copy on the candidate's talk page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 3:52 pm, Today (UTC−6)

Thanks. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 21:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC) I added one more. I didn't adjust the timestamp because I don't quite understand why UTC-6 is preferable to UTC, but please feel free to edit. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose but primarily because TOOSOON. Would be willing to reconsider in a year or so.  Montanabw (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

NOTNOW?
I don't generally like to quibble about closing rationals. Especially when there were very good reasons to close this one early. But I am not sure I'd call this a case of NOTNOW. I saw very few !votes making that argument. This candidate may not have sufficient experience but they are not some newbie with less than a thousand edits. I think a better rational would be NOTQUITEYET or maybe SNOW given the lopsided vote. Anywho, just my 2¢. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC) PAGE''' ]]) 15:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I assumed that, as a bureaucrat, they were more comfortable basing a closing rationale on an information page (WP:NOTNOW) than an essay (WP:NOTQUITEYET); after all, they hold a very official position, and one of those pages is slightly more official than the other :)  &mdash;  fortuna  velut luna  22:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair point. But I still saw very few participants in the RfA citing NOTNOW. In any event its not a big deal. This was definitely deep into SNOW territory so the early close is not controversial. No point in splitting hairs. Moving on... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this seems to violate WP:NOTNOTNOW (which, admittedly, is an essay), since WP:NOTNOW shouldn't apply to users with months of tenure and thousands of edits. I'd be fine closing it as WP:SNOW, but I don't think was quite correct in using WP:NOTNOW. It's essentially saying that the minimum edit history is greater than 7 months/6000 edits, which I find hard to believe when there was no consensus for 3,000/12 months. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK


 * I see no issue at all with the NOTNOW closure which is essentially what it was. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly- per WP:NOTBURO, huh? No point in pissing about worrying about trivia if it stops a (pretty basic!) job from getting done- and stops an editor gettng further crushed &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  16:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It was indeed WP:SNOW. I do have my objections regarding WP:NOTNOW but it is not really important, is it? I would withdraw it anyways if I had been given the chance to actually do so (I was offline when it was closed and before logging out it was a bit too early in my opinion) Anyways what matters is that I have received some constructive criticism and that this RfA wasn't really going to be successful, as it turned out. So I think we should all move on (and I should follow the advice provided). I would have preferred to provide a closing statement instead of having a WP:NOTNOW closure (which isn't 100% accurate in my opinion), but that isn't so important right now. --Kostas20142 (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)