FAMEPedia:Requests for adminship/Onepel33

Onepel33

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

[ Voice your opinion on this candidate] (talk page) Final (0/4/0) ; ended 13:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC) - there was clear consensus here, a WP:SNOW request, with a hundred percent Oppose Chimobi (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination
– Seems to be pro-active when it comes to monitoring activities that happens in FAMEPedia, And as per his intention of being Administrator. Sunilbutolia (talk) 10:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)sunilbutolia


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for the nomination. I accept your nomination and will truly work for the FAMEPedia..Onepel33 (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve FAMEPedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A:


 * 2. What are your best contributions to FAMEPedia, and why?
 * A:


 * 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:

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.

Discussion

 * Links for Onepel33:.

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

Oppose

 * 1) on the following rationale. This is not because I fundamentally consider this user a risk or because he hasn't contributed, but because there are multiple issues at heart in this proposal and the wiki's current circumstances. Bear in mind I can raise these issues with other existing admins, but to develop good practice a responsible precedence needs to start somewhere.
 * 2) * Frankly, I am skeptical of the nominator's grasp of bigger picture contributions to the wiki, having come back a very short time ago to participate in administrative things and raising little reason for why this user deserves the power. It is in line with past promotions that were arbitrarily given, but I was not here for those; I am here now.
 * 3) * There are ongoing issues of management and policy that any regular user may and I believe should contribute to, and it is in this domain that we should get new management. His activity as of recent is commendable, but the lack of attention to these administrative matters for the very future of the wiki is something I do not wish to see in new promotions.
 * 4) * Regarding the activity, yes, he's done a fair amount recently, but judging by the contribution history this is done in very limited sprees with about three months of notable activity, first in May and second/third being last and this month. In other words, grounds for 'too soon', especially as he has requested several rights so far. While I believe this is in good faith, it's an awful lot of hats with little to uniquely define the behavior.
 * 5) * The goals for adminship are tasks that can be completed with his current powers pushing reports to existing admins. I believe he should have a wider range of activity and more diversity to his presence and character to be an effective representative of the platform.
 * Just one commenters opinion, and more native users should be considered more strongly in spite of my lengthy case. Also, the nominator may post a support at this time as this is acceptable wiki practice based on Miraheze Meta (though the nominee should not). --Raidarr (talk) 11:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  - per the rationale by Raidarr and I believe this is a NOTNOW case. --Magogre (talk) 12:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) sorry this is a NOTNOW request, plus we have more serious situation to attend to. I'd oppose with my life.AfricaEditor (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  you are requesting too many permissions in such a short period of time, way too early Sorry, you need to make actual edits that are constructive to the wiki --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have to refuse this bit; he has made constructive contributions and they are indeed actual, the only question should be if they're sufficient for earning this right. --Raidarr (talk) 15:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * i just granted them a group, Nor does the user meet the requirements we have set for adminship i recall us setting Requirements @Raidarr Cocopuff2018 (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Having or not having fancy groups does not discount contribution weighing into a larger decision, which is relatively close at 244 for this wiki if the minimum is 300. If it is 300 I'd agree the candidate is ineligible, but I'd like to know where that is since I cannot find the proposal nor the updated policy to this end. --Raidarr (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * i am currently unable to find the new policies wrote out By Joseph, at this time however, with the candidate just receiving another group Which i granted them yesterday i feel its still early for admin @Raidarr Cocopuff2018 (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Drop the stick and move on, The user in question isn't ready yet, and I'm perfectly fine with the rights they have now. Furthermore, they didn't request the right; they were nominated, so there's a good chance they were never ready for it at all, but they had no choice but to accept because they were nominated.
 * The user is currently in good standing, but it's too early, and we have an issue that everyone should be concerned about right now. AfricaEditor (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, we will leave this thread up and see what Others say. (: @AfricaEditor i did not realize it was a nomination till you mentioned it Cocopuff2018 (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You always have a choice to accept or not when you are nominated. There's even an extra step in the process where you have to accept for voting to commence. --Raidarr (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think is operating in good faith but the actual problem is that it is a NOTNOW case and they should have been guided properly about adminship and our RfA system (which is a copy of English Wikipedia). They didn't even answered the questions. --Magogre (talk)  17:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

General comments

 * Why is the nomination statement copied from my RfA? --Magogre (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This tells you how lazy a man can be. AfricaEditor (talk) 12:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 😂 no, it's not something like that. Sunilbutolia (talk) 13:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And yet the question is unanswered. --Raidarr (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2021 (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.