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

Kostas20142

Final (9/22/9); ended 21:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC) per WP:NOTNOW ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Nomination

Kostas20142 ( talk · contribs) – Admittedly, I am not the typical successful RfA candidate- I have a tenure of 7 months, with approximately 6,800 edits. During this time, I have assisted mainly in counter-vandalism, new pages patrolling and occasionally closing some backlogged WP:RM discussions. During this period, I feel that I have proven two things: The first is that I want to help the project in any way I can. The second is that I am not going to misuse any tools assigned. By this I do not mean that I haven't made any mistakes. I most certainly have. Just like most editors. However I can tell for sure that they were not intentional, and that I have learnt a lot from them.
So, the reason I decided to request adminship now, and not after a year or so, is that in my opinion, the project needs additional administrators willing to help in areas like AIV, UAA CSD etc. Venues with which I am familiar and feel qualified to help at. Kostas20142 ( talk) 13:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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: Mainly UAA, CSD, AIV and WP:PERM

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

A: In my opinion, my best contribution to the project is my counter-vandalism work and my patrolling for inappropriate pages. In terms of content creation, I have contributed to black-necked grebe, mainly by adding the status. I have also reviewed some GA nominations.

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: No, although some users have disagreed with me, and vice versa, it hasn't ever been anywhere close to conflict. During my anti-vandalism work, (especially reversions), some editors had been upset and uncivil, but it didn't cause me any stress. If i was involved in a dispute, I would first of all discuss the issue with the other contributors involved and in case of a failure, I would seek the proper dispute resolution venue. If my recent experience as an Arbitration Committee clerk has taught me something, it is that by disengaging and seeking dispute resolution, a lot of problems, and lots of drama, can be avoided.

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 BU Rob13

4. You see a request at PERM asking for temporary semi-protection on a page. Looking at the page history, you see three IPs active there (127.0.0.1, 127.0.1.64, and 127.0.0.93), all adding the phrase "Butts are funny." What do you do?

A: First of all I would move the misplaced request to RFPP, notify the user, and add a comment stating that. I would warn the IPs however I would not block any because they belong to the loopback network, something that I am not familiar with. I would instead contact a CU, because they know better this stuff. (don't even know if it actually possible to happen.) If it was another range, I would warn, block and if needed use a rangenlock. Likely same person, so no protection.

@ Kostas20142: To be clear, the example IPs were chosen merely to avoid giving any IP addresses actually used by editors. The important bit was whether you'd protect or not, which you answered correctly. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 15:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Additional question from Ritchie333

5. Two months ago you, filed a poll (your second) at WP:ORCP, in which I gave you 4/10 and warned you about over-zealous CSD tagging, and which Chris Troutman closed as follows : "Average of 4.25 It's been a couple weeks and based on the comments given, I think WP:NOTNOW is applicable." Can you briefly explain how you have improved to the extent you can be fully trusted with the entire toolset?

A: During this period, I feel that I have significantly improved my CSD tagging and that it is not overzealous any more (I did a mistake today at CSD, but I feel that almost everyone does occasionally). I have also gained some experience in other areas like closing RfCs. Regarding content creation, I helped at black-necked grebe and reviewed some GA nominations. Regarding WP:NOTNOW, I do not think that it is applicable any more. Overall I don't think that I have a pattern of behaviour that indicates I cannot be trusted with any part of the toolset. At least not any more.

Additional question from SoWhy

6. Since you plan on working at CSD, please explain this tagging from today.

A: Looking it with a fresh eye, I was mistaken this time. A7 indeed doesn't apply. Regarding G11, the article did have a promotional tone, but it was not "unambiguous advertising". Therefore I should have explained to the user that their tone was a bit promotional, and that sources should be included in order to establish notability. In case I had deleted it and someone (the user or another admin) raised it, I would definitely undelete it, apologise and do what I said before.

Additional questions from Ivanvector

I'm burning my two right off the bat.

7. I see you were recently accepted as a trainee Arbitration committee clerk ( [1]). What led you to pursue clerking? In your brief experience, have you observed any ways in which the admin toolset would help you in this task?

A: I always believed that dispute resolution is an important process, and arbitration committee's well-functioning is crucial. However in order to run smoothly, active clerks are necessary. And when I applied, the workload was heavier. I was confident that I have the qualities needed I order to be a productive member of the team, and therefore I decided to apply. There are a few ways in which admin tools can help. Sometimes for example, pages need to be protected, like Winhunter case. Some other times, participants get banned from editing specific arbitration cases, and a block may be proved necessary to enforce this

8. Your CSD log lists 39 instances of requesting speedy deletion under criterion G13. In your opinion, what are some reasons that a draft article with no apparent issues should be deleted when it hasn't been edited for six months?

A: I am generally pretty careful with this criterion. Most of the drafts I nominated were problematic in a way. 2 or so were in Greek (Greek Wikipedia had an article for this subject), other were invalid submissions, one was a biography of a child, that would be deleted under A7 if was an actual article. For the rest, they were abandoned drafts, the creators of which were no longer contributing, and the subject of which were still not notable. I also ran a check for this. Under those conditions, I believe that abandoned drafts can be deleted. If there are signs that notability can be established, it is better to keep them and either improve them or contact a related wikiproject or even contributor asking to do so.

Additional question from Alex Shih

9. What do you think is the role of WP:PERM in Wikipedia, and would you describe your approach toward granting user rights?

A: The role of WP:PERM is to assign some tools to contributors that can (1) be trusted with them and (2) need them in order to perform certain tasks in order to improve or maintain the project. I would not mind ignoring some guidelines regarding edits etc if a user demonstrated real need for them and were trustworthy. Especially for relatively harmless permissions like rollback. Overall I find trust and demonstrated need more important that edit counts etc. I would not touch template editor since I am nit familiar with and be extremely cautious with page mover though.

Additional question from There'sNoTime

10. As a new administrator you receive a Wikipedia email from established editor "User:X" complaining that "User:Y" has been following their contributions and reverting some of them after they recently had a heated disagreement. Often these reverts have no edit summary, and "User:Y" doesn't respond to any talk page messages about it. How would you begin to deal with this?

A: First of all, I would check both users' contributions, to see what has actually happened as wellad what was the nature of their disagreement. I would warn User Y for this behaviour if User X was correct, however I would do the same with user if they had been uncivil. If the disagreement was initially content-related (which would likely be the case considering the questions' context), I would check what method of dispute resolution could be followed and recommend it. My next action would be to monitor the users. If any of them continued, I would raise the issue to ANI, proposing most likely an interaction ban.

Additional question from Ad Orientem

11. Thank you for offering to serve. Do you believe it is ever appropriate for an admin to unilaterally delete an article from the mainspace? That is to say deletion of an article not already nominated for CSD and w/o review by another admin. If yes, under what circumstances?

A: Yes, I believe that in some cases, articles can be deleted like this. First of all, attack pages should be deleted at sight. Same applies for unambiguous copyright infringement . Regarding promotional pages, if it was blatant, I would delete, otherwise tag appropriately. Vandalism pages and blatant hoaxes should be treated the same way. For the rest of cases, I feel it is better to tag and let another admin review. In that way (1) the user has the opportunity to fix the issues raised and (2) mistakes can be avoided. 2 pairs of eyes and 2 brains are better than one.

Additional question from Usernamekiran

12. Hi. This is sort of a follow-up question based on the discussion below. These are also sort of two questions packed in one, but they are related to each-other: If given the "admin" flag, would you continue to work with "GA reviews"? (That field, and AfC are sort of very much backlogged now.) Kindly refer to the discussion in "general comments" initiated by Ritchie333 so that you would get a better idea about my question. To be more precise, I am concerned if an admin usually makes a comment, most of the editors assume it must be right as it was commented by an "admin" (admin = a person who has gone through a lot of hoops, and showed understanding of policies, and then successfully passed a murky place by the name RfA). Assuming you would continue, what/how would be your approach towards reviewing the article on hand? Also, kindly elaborate (brief would work too) about the general criteria that you would like to see/not see in a candidate for GA.

A:

Additional question from TonyBallioni

13. You mentioned copyright deletion (G12) in your response to question 11 as something you would speedy delete unilaterally. Could you explain how you would determine if something was a copyright violation, and your understanding of the difference between WP:G12 and WP:RD1?

A:

Additional question from Linguist111

14. You say you want to work at UAA. What would you do about these usernames?

• 🤣🙃😜🤡😬🖕💪 (10 constructive edits)
• Leprivacark (1 edit; left the message "Hi! I just noticed we have similar usernames :)" at User talk:Lepricavark)

A:

Discussion

• Links for Kostas20142: Kostas20142 ( talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Kostas20142 can be found here.

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

Support

1. RfA requirements are, in my view, too stringent. This candidate has demonstrated WP:CLUE and will be a net positive if given the tools now. Lepricavark ( talk) 15:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
2. Support - I've checked over the last three months of this user's edit history, and have found generally clueful behaviour. All interactions I see between them and other users have been positive, and they make good reports to UAA. It's unfortunate that they made a CSD tagging error today, but their overall CSD work is good. This candidate is a WP:NETPOSITIVE, and probably would have passed under pre-2010 RfA standards, when most of our current admins were promoted. -- Ajraddatz ( talk) 15:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
3. Support. Tenure and editcount are sufficient (more than six months, more than 2000 edits). CSD tagging isn't perfect, but quite good. Haven't seen anything that makes me believe candidate wouldn't be a net positive. — Kusma ( t· c) 16:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
4. Weak support per Lepricavark. I would've much preferred that Kostas waited another 6-18 months before applying for adminship, as this early nomination has somewhat muddied the waters, but I don't see any indications that Kostas wouldn't be a net positive. -- Ahecht ( TALK
   PAGE) 16:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
5. Support Sure, he's not very experienced, but he will be a net positive. I'm fine with anyone who has edited for more than 6 months and made 5000 edits becoming an admin, as long as they demonstrate WP:CLUE, which this candidate certainly does. I'm a little concerned about hat-collecting, but I think he'll be fine. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
6. Support Per all above. My name continues to not be dave ( talk) 17:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
7. Support Just cause. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 18:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
8. Support per Lepricavark. 10 years ago this would have had a chance at passing, I don't see why it shouldn't now. We need more admins. – filelakeshoe ( t / c)  19:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
9. Moral Support – Sufficient experience; a WP:NETPOSITIVE for the encyclopaedia. J 947^{( c ) ( m)} 19:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Oppose

1. Oppose Candidate had 34% of edits in user talk space, and less than 29% in mainspace. I typically support RfAs but this one is just not qualified yet. I might change later but for now, I must oppose. Also, see my vote (support) on Headbomb's 4th RfA. Mr me i 21:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

   That's a common ratio for someone devoted to vandal-fighting, due to leaving {{subst:uw-whatever}} tags.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  16:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

   I was trying to say that, but had 9 edit conflicts... but you probably got the point across better than I did, so... -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

   CSD nominations further skew this, as the mainspace edit is usually deleted, and only the user talk and userspace edits remain. — Kusma ( t· c) 16:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

   FWIW, Kostas' deleted contribs include 364 mainspace and 16 talk edits, which would adjust the ratios to 31.3% and 14.9% respectively (and 31.4% in user talk). Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 16:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

2. Oppose 1.) Lack of experience at the WP:DRN. Although you're the volunteer coordinator, you have only 25 edits to the page in the last three months, with almost all of them coming within a seven day period. This tells me you aren't necessarily committed to the role. 2.) The majority of your edits came in a two month span (April and May 2017). You've barely had more than 1,000 since then. Again, this bolsters my concern with your commitment. 3.) You mistagged a CSD today. 3.) Not one, but two RfA candidate polls (most recent just being 2 months, 20 days ago) on top of the sporadic use of tools and participation on top of the global renamer bit with K6ka after just 19 edits to that part of the wiki leads me to believe that you are attempting to hat collect your way to the top instead of actually use these tools to benefit the community. Nihlus 15:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
3. Oppose - Largely per my response to your request for your chances at my talk page. Of the one year, one month you’ve been here, 7 of those months have little to no edits. I also do not see a demonstrated need for the tools. Additionally, your most contributed to space is User talk pages. I would support in the future if you show more of a need for the tools, a firm understanding of policy and increase your activity. -- Dane ^talk 15:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

   For the record, I would expect that a user whose activity is focused around NPP or CSD tagging would have most of their contributions in the "User talk" namespace, since their contributions in mainspace (the tagging of the article) is wiped out when the article is deleted. If a majority of their contributions weren't in "User talk", that would either mean that they aren't properly notifying page creators or they are tagging lots of pages that don't end up getting deleted. -- Ahecht ( TALK
   PAGE) 16:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

   @ Ahecht: That's assuming the primary purpose of NPP is speedily deleting articles. In my experience a much greater proportion of articles in the new pages feed require basic cleanup and tagging and then a positive review. That kind of gnomish patrolling should rack up a lot of mainspace edits. –  Joe ( talk) 17:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

4. Oppose You were given advice to wait at least a year by experienced editors yet you decided their input wasn't worth adhering to. Such a hasty move to become an admin leads me to believe you are trying to rush your way to the "top" of the food chain as a benefit to yourself rather than the community. From my own experiences, interacting with others, editors usually have a thorough understanding of the ins and outs of Wikipedia after two years; for some, it takes longer. I apologize but I don't have any confidence in anyone with just a seven-month tenure. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 16:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose This is a clear WP:NOTNOW. jd22292 ( Jalen D. Folf) ( talk) 16:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

   Those of us seriously reviewing this candidacy and considering comments here might appreciate if you would expand on this a bit. Why is this a NOTNOW? Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 16:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

6. Oppose - Far too inexperienced. I took a look at their UAA contributions, which is one of the fields the candidate intends to specialize in and concidentally the one they've contributed most to. They have 83 edits to that page, 80 of which is reporting usernames. The editor has only clerked one username at UAA, and that was Mxentfamily which the user tagged as not an obvious violation of the UAA policy and stated doesn't promote any organization, or company. I haven't clerked at UAA in a long while, so I had to go refresh my memory of the procedures. A google search for Mxentfamily revealed, immediately, that this was indeed a company (the first link is to MXentertainments (@Mxentfamily) instagram for example) and that the username was promotional in nature. With regards to the username; MX is a reference to a non-notable rapper, MX (rapper), otherwise known as Michael Angelo Oentardi, ent is shortform for entertainment, and family simply suggests multiple users using the account. Indeed, that particular account was a sockpuppet of Kpop05 whose only contributions were adding the rapper's name here and here (though this was discovered well after the UAA report). A search, on the 8th of May (their contributions have since been deleted), of the reported editor's contributions, followed by a google search for MXentfamily and Michael Angelo Oentardi should have given Ksostas all the information they needed to know that it was an obvious violation of the username policy under the reported point 4 - promotional username - and point 6 - implied share-use. Now, I might overlook this error, if it wasn't the only example of clerking at UAA that existed. People make mistakes, I make mistakes, but, if the only example I have to consider in front of me is an example of a mistake, then that's a problem.
   I'd say WP:NOTNOW and recommend the editor re-apply in two years, and not sooner, when they have gathered significant experience under their belt. I specify two years because I sense a hint of hat-collecting here and because they've only really been active for seven months. I mention hat-collecting because, I note from your talk page archives that, you were granted Rollback on the 4th of April, Pending Changes Reviewer on the 14th of April, Page Mover on the 18th of April, New Pages Reviewer on the 24th of April, started aiming for the admin bit on the 6th of June and you've only just received mass-message sender rights as of two days ago. None of this makes me more comfortable with granting you additional rights.
   Question for the wider audience; is there a way to see how many times an editor has used a permission, such as rollback, the same way there is for seeing how many admin actions were taken by an admin? Mr rnddude ( talk) 16:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

   @ Rnddude: I mainly requested it for access to huggle, so you may check how many automated edits I have made using this tool. -- Kostas20142 ( talk) 16:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

   I'm more interested in your use of each of the tools you have individually. Huggle is only a portion of your automated edits, but, I can find that via xtools. If you've actively used the tools you've asked for, excluding mass-message because you've only just received it, then at least I know you're making use of the tools and not just adding tools for the sake of it. Rollback with Huggle makes perfect sense, that is why I got rollback myself. Case in point here, and on the topic of Huggle, you received rollback on April 4th and haven't used Huggle once since May 31st. This coincides with your two most active months in mainspace; April and May (689 edits and 757 edits totalling 1446 edits or 80% of mainspace editing and 29.5% of automated editing with another 13% for user talk pages for a total of 42% Huggle use for automated editing). To me this reads like this; got the tool, played with the tool while it was new, got bored of it, found something else to do. I did something similar at the time, but, I do use Huggle for anti-vandalism patrols every now and then - e.g. in September I used the tool for about a hundred edits. This is better than abusing the tool, but, it's not demonstrating a temperament any different to a five year old.
   Consider Oshwah for example, he's used Huggle for 173k edits and uses them daily. He has admin tools now. Yet, and this is key, the purpose of getting those admin tools has been to expedite and support his anti-vandalism work. He's got a sound connection between his tools; Rollback for Huggle, Huggle for anti-vandalism, Admin tools for dealing with vandals (rollback is bundled with admin tools). Of course he does other things as well with them, but, there's a method behind his choices and a reason to support them. With you I just see a collection of temporary interests and spreading out as fast as possible. It's fine to have your interests change over time and to have a number of interests, but, these are powerful tools your asking for, and I need a cogent reason to support your getting them that goes beyond what you've presented in your editing and answers so far. That you won't abuse them is simply not sufficient for me.
   Another case in point, from Q1 by comparison to you; UAA is about 0.012% of your editing, AIV is about half that, PERM is somewhere similar to AIV and CSD is about 0.042% of your editing. All up, you're asking the tools for about 0.066% of your editing where you might use them. As I said, I am browsing your user logs right now, though, that will take some time to get through. Mr rnddude ( talk) 17:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

   

   ( edit conflict) You can browse the logs available at Special:Log/Kostas20142, which will give you mass messages, moves, page curation (NPP), patrol (also NPP), and review (pending changes actions), but not rollback. You can also try the automated edits tool here which gives you a count of rollbacks, but not links to the edits. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 17:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

   I was hoping more for a tally like xtools does with semi-automated edits or number of blocks/protects/etc. The user logs will have to do. I'm browsing them right now. I'm most interested in seeing whether the tools granted are being made use of first, and then how they're being used second. Might seem backwards, but, there's a method to that madness. Mr rnddude ( talk) 17:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

   Oh I see what you mean. You can use this for review and patrol, but I dont' know of a tool for the others. xtools is a big place, though. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 17:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

   Ivanvector, dunno if you know this already, but, you can single out which tools logs you want to see by clicking the drop down button, to the left of "performer" like here. Reads your first comment. Realizes I'm a potato. Strikes previous comment. Mr rnddude ( talk) 17:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

7. Oppose Far too inexperienced to be trusted with the tools at this point. Consider getting a mentor to help train you. - SanAnMan ( talk) 16:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
8. Oppose, per review, too inexperienced and for reasons stated by, TheGracefulSlick and Mr rnddude. Kierzek ( talk) 17:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
9. Oppose. I'm sorry but between your rapid accumulation of user rights, rush to get involved in patrolling and dispute resolution work, apparent lack of substantial contributions to article space, and now this premature RfA, you give the strong impression that you are here because you want to be a 'Wikipedia admin' and not to help write an encyclopaedia. You're clueful enough to realise that you are not yet a "typical successful candidate": dial back on the hat collecting, spend a year or two focusing on content creation, and make yourself one. –  Joe ( talk) 17:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
10. Oppose. Usually, I don't put much stock in calls of "hat collecting". If someone pulls off the great heist of becoming an admin by helping the encyclopedia enough to gain user rights and then continues to improve it with the rights, is that really a bad thing? However, here I think the hat collecting has led to a lack of depth. The DRN co-ordinator role with very little time spent at DRN is especially concerning; what's the point of going for that? I don't see great skill in any one area, possibly because you've waded into so many areas in search of hats. The lack of experience with conflict is concerning; the answer to Q3 is a complete miss. The recent CSD mistake (which is really two mistakes, since both criteria used were incorrect) is the final straw. My !votes at RfA weigh risk vs. expected reward. When we accept an inexperienced administrator, there is a higher risk that they will prove to be a poor admin because we don't have a long enough record to judge them on. Therefore, I require that the expected reward appears very high. Here, I just don't see that. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 17:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
11. Oppose - not experienced enough, sorry. Giant Snowman 17:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
12. Oppose- Am all for having more admins but am afraid with only one article created [2] it is to soon to get the admin tool.  FITINDIA  17:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

    One disam. page, anyway. — fortuna velut luna 18:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

    Also has quite a number of drafts in the works; see contributions.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

13. Oppose - I want candidates who have been here 2 years not 7 months!, Also they should've taken the ORCP comments onboard and came here in a year or 2 ... instead they've seemingly ignored each and every comment!, I suggest someone closes this per NOTNOW. – Davey2010 ^Talk 18:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
14. Oppose - as per Rob13. Hchc2009 ( talk) 18:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
15. Oppose with regret - I've been mulling this over and trying to give you a fair chance. I think you could probably work AIV and block vandals, you'd do a good job most of the time and that's a plus point. On the other hand, I cannot help thinking that everything you have done ever since you got this account has been trying to collect hats as mentioned elsewhere, without any of the content work that all long-term users start off with. In my opinion, you do everything in good faith, but it's not unreasonable to suggest you aren't really here to write an encyclopedia, and that's a serious problem. I think you need to keep far away from all maintenance areas of the project and just stick to writing content, gnoming or reverting vandalism, otherwise I fear your career on Wikipedia will end as soon as you get bored or seriously harassed by a particularly unpleasant sockfarm. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
16. Oppose with regret. I myself considered running for adminship a while back but after an ORCP I decided that waiting till I've been here for at least two years would be benefitial. You seem pretty clued up and while giving you the mop probably wouldn't result in the rapture I think another year would do good. I'm a bit of a jack-of-all-trades on Wikipedia and my enthusiasm has been mistaken for hat-collecting so I see us as alike in some ways. Your stats (CSD, AFD etc) seem fine but for the year you've been here you haven't edited for half of it. My advice would be to stick around and contribute more regularly and maybe try again this time next year. DrStrauss talk 19:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
17. Oppose per above, although not with regret. Lack of content editing, barely any experience on Wikipedia, and very low editing count which mostly relates to user talk pages. I don't trust this user with admin tools. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 19:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
18. Oppose - fighting vandalism does nothing to prove you have the discretion and diplomacy required to be an admin. If this were a request for rollbacker rights I'd be all for it, but it's not. At least show a more prolonged period of contributions. Being good at something over a short period does not mean you have earned an admin position, which is ideally a permanent position. What's to say you won't lose interest in WP in a short while? There is a reason for having a time requirement, and that's because: a) it shows commitment; b) it shows a thorough understanding of the rules of WP; and c) it shows a thorough understanding of the unwritten rules of the WP community and its culture. Try again in a year or so, I don't know. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
19. Oppose. Participation and tenure are at the low end, and that makes me nervous. I need to see something strong to remove that feeling, and I'm just not seeing it. I'm least demanding on candidates that want to do AV, but I still want to see some own content. I also like to see conflict experience, and AV editors don't get much of that. This is the first time I've considered a self-nom to be a negative; in the past, I didn't care. I'm wondering about collaboration, taking advice, and hat collecting. Glrx ( talk) 20:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
20. Oppose only for tenure and lack of experience. Please apply again later!-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 21:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
21. Oppose; not now. Seven months is far from enough time to familiarize oneself fully with Wikipedia rules and policies, and TheGracefulSlick makes a good point too. Sorry. 65 HC A7 21:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
22. Oppose really too soon. Dysklyver 21:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Neutral

1. Neutral for now, but I feel the need to suggest that this is a candidacy worth considering. The candidate lacks tenure, but is generally past the bright line of WP:NOTNOW. At a really quick first glance: just shy of 90% on AfD stats, about 45% of contributions in main & talk space, participates in the GA process and has one GA in their significant contribs. CSD & PROD logs are mostly red. More review needed, but I don't think this should be an automatic "no". Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 15:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
2. Neutral for now, but the near-80% automated edits might stand out for some. — fortuna velut luna 15:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

   Perhaps so. They've also said they're mostly interested in patrolling and anti-vandalism, which are now almost exclusively the domain of automated tools, so the ratio is sensible. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 15:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

   It also fails to demonstrate the ability to string a sentence of decent prose together which is rather unfortunate. Considering the importance of communication- is less sensible. — fortuna velut luna

   I can find some article expansion edits here, just on one article as far as I checked. Just FYI since I don't have an opinion on this candidacy yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 15:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

   Yes, they mentioned that in their answer to Q3. 19 edits the max, I believe, to any one article. — fortuna velut luna 15:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

3. Neutral for now: I cannot bring myself to neither support nor oppose. Nearly 80% automated edits can be misleading in this case, as Kostas20142 is certainly a good editor with good judgement based on personal interactions. The candidate strikes me as uncontroversial, which (ironically) is probably one of the stronger qualities. Alex Shih ^Talk 15:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
4. Neutral. The candidate is clear about responding to feedback from the community and taking recommended steps to improve. In looking at the recent OCRP that Ritchie linked to above, I note that the candidate has followed RileyBugz’s advice pretty much down to the letter in contributing to Black-necked grebe and waiting three months. However I think that the candidate is still acting a little too hastily, resulting in a case of WP:NOTQUITEYET (an essay that, as noted, should not be confused with WP:NOTNOW which I do not think applies here). ZettaComposer ( talk) 16:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
5. Neutral I have concerns based on WP:HATCOLLECT and am unwilling to support or oppose at this time. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 16:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
6. Neutral per Alex Shih. Jianhui67 ^{T★ C} 18:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
7. Neutral, verging on "moral support", but with some concerns. Candidate definitely exhibits a clue, and does real "admin-style" work, including vandal fighting and NAC and CSD. I was favorably impressed that when I raised an issue about a questionable close, Kostas20142 addressed the matter immediately and without umbrage (turned out to be a typo that reversed the intended meaning of one sentence in the close). I normally vote strict oppose on accounts under 1 year and without way more mainspace contributions, but my "WTF?" senses are not tingling about this editor at all. However, one favorable impression isn't enough for me to support outright, especially given my historical opposition to "career admins". We need admins who are first and foremost editors, well experienced with the encyclopedia-building work we're all really here to do, and more narrowly experienced with negotiating content disputes, especially being able to tease apart behavioral issues from content matters, which requires experience and a thorough absorption of WP community culture and expectations. If this does not pass, I would urge the candidate to refrain from trying again for a year or so, and to avoid seeking more user privileges without a need for them. Even if the intent is genuinely to be helpful, there will always be people who make hat-collecting accusations. I've been here 12 years and do not have some of the bits that Kostas20142 was asking for, nor do most of us.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
8. Neutral for now. This is an editor that I want to support. They have done a lot of good work and demonstrated CLUE. Their answer to my question was a bit more tolerant of a practice I'm not fond of, but still well reasoned. And even I will concede unilateral deletion for naked attack pages or A3 vandalism only articles. Nor am I overly concerned about hat collecting. My main reservation is experience and the disregard of the advice to wait a bit. If I end up supporting or opposing this it will almost certainly be a weak vote either way. NOTQUITEYET may well be the basis for an eventual oppose. But if this crashes, right now it's trending towards a SNOW close, I hope Kostas20142 will take a deep breath, spend 6 months to a year padding their resume, and come back. I see this editor as a likely good future admin. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
9. Neutral as well. I certainly don't see any good reason to oppose the candidate per se; he/she certainly seems clueful enough and frankly probably would ultimately be a WP:NETPOSITIVE. But right now he/she appears to be in a mighty rush to get the mop, and as others have pointed out, this seems to be a bit of a trend with other tools as well. Once the candidate can demonstrate a reasonable and consistent history of actually doing good with the tools he/she already has, I would be happy to support. WP:NOTQUITEYET sums it up pretty well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cthomas3 ( talk • contribs) 20:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

General comments

• I am concerned over a number of GA reviews conducted by Kostas20142, and fear they may be slapdash. I'm not a scientist, and I normally don't go near identifying reliable sources for medicine or the scientific citation guidelines, so I can't really comment authoritatively - can somebody who is put my fears at rest? To give you an example, the lead of Cerebrospinal fluid says "There is about 125mL of CSF at any one time" while the body says "There is about 125-150 mL of CSF at any one time" Which is right?

  This is an issue that goes wider than this RfA - if we are classing scientific / medical articles as GAs prematurely, it can bring the encyclopedia into disrepute. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  Is the doctor in the house? Alex Shih ^Talk 16:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  My brief experience with GA reviews suggests this isn't unusual. I've gone through two GAs: the first was so thorough that after passing the article immediately passed FA with little work at all, and I don't think it's really the objective of GA review to create featured articles. The second, which I thought sure to fail but was interested in suggestions, passed immediately. As for cerebrospinal fluid, Kostas spent a little over 3 hours reviewing a 2,800-word article and offered suggestions for improvement before ultimately passing it. I think that's sufficient for a GA review, though we may hold medicine articles to a higher standard. For what it's worth I can't access the source given for 125-150 mL and the summary "about 125mL" was added to the lede during the review - if the source agrees then it's not wrong technically, just phrased differently. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 16:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Oh sure, this was more a gut feeling than anything else based on what else I see Kostas20142 doing; I am certain the nominator, Tom (LT), does have the required knowledge and expertise in the subject, and I'm also certain if the review pointed out improvements or suggestions, they would be acted on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• This seems more of a case for WP:Not quite yet than WP:Not now; the latter is for newcomers while the former is for people with some experience which he definately has.. Galobtter ( talk) 17:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Can we close this per the snowball clause? Mr me i 21:22, 11 October 2017 (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.