Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ProhibitOnions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

ProhibitOnions[edit]

Final (59/2/0) ended 20:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

ProhibitOnions (talk · contribs) – I have had contact with ProhibitOnions and his good and calm editing style stuck in my memory - thus when I saw him as being interested in administration on the list of non-admins with high edit counts, I thought 'Why Not?'. He has been completing non-admin 'janitorial tasks' such as welcoming users and fulfilling page requests already. He's bilingual and has been very active on Wikipedia for a while now, registering over a year ago in January 2005. His contributions are wide ranging and he is a more than competent editor who would benefit the community if given admin tools Robdurbar 14:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. ProhibitOnions 19:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Stütze, o ja, ich bin alles dafür! JIP | Talk 20:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, just about. A little short of my usual standards but from my interactions with him, I would be confident he will be a good admin. Stifle 20:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Well rounded contributions, has been here for a while, a good editor, seems like a polite and calm guy, etc. Should make a good janitor. Also more bilingual admins is a good thing. --W.marsh 21:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support meets most, if not all, of my criteria; fairly well diverisified, solid answers, polite, and the above reasons. — Deckiller 21:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support you mean you're not an admin already? I'd have nominated you myself if I'd realised this. Thryduulf 21:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Excellent editor, well-rounded wiki-career. Xoloz 22:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Haven't had a great deal of conduct with him, but the question answers impressed me Cynical 22:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Changed to oppose on the basis of John Reid's comments Cynical 22:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Happy to change back to ‘’’Support’’’ per answers to JayZ’s questions below Cynical 22:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Good number of mainspace edits. --Andy123(talk) 22:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose anti-onion POV warrior Support, wonderful editor. Has a keen mind for policy, has a solid history of interaction, general neat guy. Lord Bob 22:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Seems like a decent candidate, and I don't buy the oppose arguments. If the user is trustworthy it follows he can be trusted to close AFDs. It's not even as if an AFD result is secret or absolutely final. --kingboyk 00:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support JoshuaZ 00:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  12. Support because Sarah says so. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 02:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Was leaning toward neutral but I looked around this page a bit more and decided strong support. Also the name is catchy... blocking those legions of Tor IPs would be a most fitting task. — Apr. 3, '06 [03:46] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  15. Support - I'm not fussed about 'deletionist bias'. He clearly is already operating as a good admin should. - Richardcavell 04:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support as nominator Robdurbar 09:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support meets criteria, good user. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 09:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, looks good. --Terence Ong 09:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Totally biased fellow English-speaking Berliner support. Even if he does have peculiar views about vegetables, he will make a fine admin. Angr (talk • contribs) 10:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - so what if he's a deletionist by nature? Many admins are. What's important is whether the user happens to be trustworthy, sensible, and comprehends the nature of consensus. ProhibitOnions seems sensible, good-natured, and seems to understand consensus; ergo supporto, as they say in Latin. Proto||type 11:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support as a fellow Berliner (that will raise the number of Berlin en-admins to a glorious 3) Lectonar 14:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, even though I vehemently disagree with his viewpoint towards onions. -- JamesTeterenko 15:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support cause adminship is no big deal, and bias against deletionists is not an acceptable reason for opposing in my opinion. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 16:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Believing in something does not mean that you can't follow consensus. I would like to see more deleted edits, though. --Rory096 17:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support (S). — FireFox • T [19:30, 3 April 2006]
  27. Support everything looks good. --Jay(Reply) 20:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support OK in my book. _-M o P-_ 22:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support despite anti-onion bias. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, satisfied PO is ready for the mop. Surprised by the deletionist label, if anything I've seen inclusionism in recent AfD activities. Deizio 22:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, random sampling of AfD was pretty balanced - and consistent with personal observations. Well spoken when defending his opinons. Kuru talk 02:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Calm headed and experienced are what sold me. -- Patman2648 19:58 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support a calm and cool user in heater arguments. Jedi6-(need help?) 04:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support--Jusjih 15:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support even though you don't like onions. :) Kafziel 15:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Martin 16:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support per nom, Kuru, and RichardCav. Joe 19:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Has shown the ability to remain calm on contentious AfD issues. In response to opposition, I just don't anticipate ProhibitOnions ignoring consensus at closing and deleting out of process. That would be very out of character from what I've seen.--Isotope23 20:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. I saw him on the list of high edit counts and saw him on several AfDs, and thought he was worth nominating. And now I see he's up for nomination. --Elkman - (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support for so many reasons. Royboycrashfan 05:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Excellent. Covington 06:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Even though onion prohibition is a bad thing. Good well balanced editor. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. --Ligulem 09:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support good work on AfD, seems like an appropriately reasonable person, would make a good onion MLA 16:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support . Good work. pschemp | talk 17:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. "Strong deletionist bias" != inability to determine consensus. — Rebelguys2 talk 19:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. I've seen your work, and your votes to save some pretty good articles from deletion.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 15:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Keep. No, wait: Support. Well, honestly. Has all the skills an admin needs, so let's give him the keys to the cupboard. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Great editor, and good answers to questions below. --Allen 23:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. The heart of the fooshkoot is bitter. (this is not an oppose vote) DS 20:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Can'tProhibit Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 00:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support--Adam (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Ick unterstütz Balina. Kusma (討論) 02:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Good user. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Rama's Arrow 20:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - Aksi_great (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Seems to have generated goodwill in the community. Hiding talk 16:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support though I tend to side with JIP's comments - we gotta watch those pesky tomatoes. --Alf melmac 17:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Weak Support ProhibitOnions has shown to be an inclusionist recently, but I don't know him all that well. Jonathan235 18:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose -- Strong deletionist bias displayed on AfD. While I find this acceptable in an editor and participant in AfD, I do not want this user to be closing. John Reid 22:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per John Reid Cynical 22:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Changed [back] to support as a result of the answers to JayZ's questions Cynical 22:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Per above, not active enough with the Wikipedia community. --Masssiveego 06:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral

  1. Neutral I am the world's biggest inclusionist, so I can't vote Support. I can't oppose because he deals with the n00bs and is very active iwthin the Wikipedia community. Jonathan235 16:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I don't really see what (allegedly) being a deletionist has to do with closing AfDs. You can close AfDs fairly regardless of your personal opinions about deletion, because a good closing of an AfD is all about determining consensus and not at all about your personal opinions. Does anyone have evidence that the candidate would do things against consensus? That's the only thing that should really be relevent here. --W.marsh 23:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. Opposing based on someone's views with no evidence they will close unfairly is assuming bad faith. - Taxman Talk 12:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Onions are nice. Onions are your friends. Prohibit tomatoes! Tomatoes taste horrible! Tomatoes have a secret plan to conquer the world and enslave mankind! JIP | Talk 11:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Onions taste good, but they're not likely to endear others to you. Mmm, onion breath. And besides, he could be Jain and it could be religious. Tread lightly! - Taxman Talk 12:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 20:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See ProhibitOnions's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. There are several things I can see myself doing with gusto, including contributing to and monitoring the Main Page, working on speedy deletions, determining consensus on articles for deletion, protecting and unprotecting pages, and helping with persistent vandalism (see my third answer). As I am not yet an admin, I can't predict which activity, if any, will become my "specialty"; I intend to play things a little safe at the beginning, deferring to experienced admins as appropriate, while gaining admin experience in all areas.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Yes, there are several articles I am pleased with. I'm slowly adding articles about the day-to-day culture of East Germany, such as Ein Kessel Buntes or the article I am probably most happy with, Puhdys; I was given a barnstar by TexasDex for Silly (band). In other instances, I'm happy that by creating an article I have helped rescue something important from being near-forgotten; The Music for UNICEF Concert and The Edsel Show are two examples. I've also created short articles or stubs for subjects that were far more obscure than they deserved, such as Mass games, the GRiD Compass (probably the first laptop), and Ryszard Siwiec, the first person to self-immolate in protest at the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia. But I'm just as happy to have added smaller details to numerous other articles (did you know that the sound at the beginning of the Sugababes' "Freak Like Me" is the sound made by the video game Frogger when a coin is inserted?).
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I'm glad to say that most of my time on Wikipedia has been a pleasant experience. I was one of the users who documented the abuses of the infamous Shran, after he repeatedly vandalized Ich bin ein Berliner (at one point using the username "Prohibit0nions" with a zero). It's always a shame to see this happen, as his vandalism evinced a certain amount of intelligence and persistence that might have been put to really good use here (and perhaps he has indeed "gone straight" under a new username, as the vandalism seemed to have stopped). The way I dealt with him was to discuss the vandalism, first on the article and user talk pages, and then elsewhere, and by so doing other users and I were able to compile a list of Shran's sockpuppets, putting a stop to his naughtiness. I've also occasionally encountered POV warriors but have avoided getting entangled in revert wars, usually leaving the page alone for a few days by which time the problem is often solved.

Questions from JoshuaZ

1 Some users have expressed concern that you are too much of a deletionist to be a good closer for AfDs. Do you have a response to this?
To be honest, I'm a little surprised to be called a deletionist. I've often found myself voting to keep articles (such as G10 (Canadian universities), tough love, Yes (word), Meredith Jung-En Woo, K200AA, and Denvilles railway station), sometimes again


The above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/ProhibitOnions&oldid=1147964339"