SmashWiki:Requests for adminship/PenguinofDeath

PenguinofDeath (talk • contribs • edit count • RFA)

There are two main reasons why I'm applying for adminship.

1. A lot of what I do on SmashWiki is combating vandalism, as my contributions show, and I feel that having the tools to delete pages and block vandals would help me out.
2. The current sysops are all American - having a British sysop would make it more likely that there's a sysop online to deal with any problems that may arise. I often mark a spam page for speedy deletion, or report a vandal on the Administrator's Noticeboard only to have to wait for America to wake up hours later for anything to actually be done about it.

About me:

• I've proven myself responsible with the Rollback tools, never having once abused them
• I've shown that I'm willing to comment on policy changes
• I'm known for being one of the most active users on SmashWiki
• I've contacted Wikia on behalf of SmashWiki, something which normally only sysops do
• I've never trolled or vandalised, or made any other form of bad faith edit
• I've only ever been blocked once, and that was purely for liking the colour orange

That's all I have to say. Your turn. PenguinofDeath 15:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. He seems to know what he's doing and is mature about his dealings with other users. Being from a different time-zone is another plus. I might have left for a while, but I see no reason why he shouldn't be at least considered. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 16:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Slight Support You contribute in a good way, and having an admin in Britain would definitely help. I'm not sure if longevity has anything to do with RfA's, but I'm just a bit unsure of running two months in to being a member. ClonedPickle 19:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Strong Support: PoD is very active, and I think he would greatly benefit from admin tools. More importantly, he actually admited he was wrong in some cases (it seems to me like many people always have to justify all of their actions instead) and has a willingness to learn. If anyone admits their mistakes instead of pushing the blame onto someone else, then I think that person will make a great admin. Enigmatic Mr. L 14:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
4. I support the penguin of death. I'm bored of trolling him. —Warwizzles 14:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. PoD's reasoning for his RfA is pretty solid, especially the time difference from Britain. He answered C-Hawk's question pretty solidly. Miles (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
6. ...

Oppose

1. No. - Warwick said it for me, even though I've never been to the IRC channel. The comments are enough proof that he just wants adminship for the hell of it. Paper Bowser (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

   Warwick said that as a joke - she didn't even check out my contributions first. "Have your say on my RfA" was supposed to be funny cos it kinda rhymes... "I promise, if you support it, I'll stop saying things like that" was a reference to the fact that it was a terrible rhyme. If you read over my RfA again, and check out my contributions, you will see that I am in no way requesting adminship "for the hell of it". As I said, I think it would help me combat vandalism. PenguinofDeath 22:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

   The correct answer is rollback. 67.10.177.73 01:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

   Ignore him. I had no idea Warwick's intentions were to joke, but I still oppose. Paper Bowser (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

   If you're opposing you have to give reasons. "Warwick said it for me" isn't particularly valid as not only did she oppose it for fun just because she likes opposing RfAs (after which she told me that I would make a better sysop than her, and she's a sysop on a fairly large wiki), she then actually vandalised this page by creating a new account claiming to be my sockpuppet. She then claimed that her account was another of my sockpuppets, and that she'd created it to troll without being recognised. You can't simply go by what other users say, as they could be wrong, joking or trying to deliberately mislead, meaning that you end up getting a false impression of me. The purpose of the Support and Oppose sections isn't to vote, it's to express an opinion to help the bureaucrat who closes the RfA make their decision. If you still think I'm requesting adminship "for the hell of it", please read over my RfA and check out my contributions, otherwise you have nothing to base an opinion on other than what Warwick said. I've made 2,584 edits, and Enigmatic Mr. L found only 10 examples of when I've made dubious edits. Granted, most of them were dubious, but they were also mostly honest mistakes which I'm willing to admit. All sysops make mistakes, and I appreciate the fact that I too am far from perfect, but if the rest of my contributions were good edits, that makes it about 99% good, 1% dubious, which is a pretty good success rate. I feel I'm a good candidate, even though I sometimes make mistakes. I know it's a pain to trawl through someone's contributions, but it's the only way you can get a good idea of what they're like if you haven't had much contact with them. PenguinofDeath 07:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

2. You are entirely ineligible considering you have been blocked within the last four months. There is no loophole in the guidelines for RfA'ing saying joke bans allow one to discount the block and thus you shouldn't be able to run at all, but since you are, I shall simply oppose you.Smoreking^(T) _(c) 22:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

   You're following the letter of the law (in this case, "policy") and missing its intention. Miles (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

   Eww wikipedia Smoreking^(T) _(c) 00:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

   Miles is right, technicalities are fail, like and such as, etc Shadowcrest 19:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

   So we have clearly written rules and I point them out and suddenly we have to change the rules t accommodate for the situation? zzz bias Smoreking^(T) _(c) 17:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

   No, we've always followed the spirit not letter idea. Stop wikilawyering. zzz idiocy Shadowcrest 17:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

3. ...

Neutral

1. ...

Comments

• Before I make my vote, can someone tell me which sysops are active right now? Cheezperson {talk}stuff 16:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

  The Current active ones are:

  • Clarinet Hawk
  • Defiant Elements
  • Erik the Appreciator
  • Miles.oppenheimer
  • Pikamander2
  • Shadowcrest
  • Silverdragon706

  From here. PenguinofDeath 16:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

  lol, I must've been gone a long time (I didn't know a few of them were mods). That page seems to be a bit out of date, but I'll go with it. Thanks! Cheezperson {talk}stuff 16:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how to say this, but you often revert edits that either shouldn't have been reverted or just needed a little tweaking. Examples would be this, this, this, this, and this (too see why the reverts were unnecessary, click on the next revision). Other unnecessary reverts include this (he just said items are banned in tournaments. You could have readded it along with "a weakness not seen in many other characters" to the trivia, but you shouldn't have undone the edit), this (saying "made the article make less sense" isn't very specific, and technically the push doesn't cause damage), and this (neither versions have citation). There are possibly others due to how many of your edits were reverts. If you revert when it's unnecesary, then you might delete or block when it's unnecessary. Additionally, it appears you made a comment without reading the full section here [yes, you crossed that edit out in your next edit, but there is a chance that the IP didn't realize you made a mistake and felt so confused that (s)he left (this IP hasn't edited after that you undid his/her edit when (s)he removed the edge-hogging line)]. Last but not least, I'm not sure you know what needs to be deleted and what needs to kept, which is important for an administrator to know. I hope you can rebut these points, as I'd rather support someone than oppose someone. Enigmatic Mr. L 19:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

  In response to your points, in order. Peach (SSBB): The edit didn't make a lot of sense, and the points had indeed already been made in the Attributes section. To be fair, I should've just reworded it (also, that wasn't a particularly recent edit). R.O.B. (SSBB): It is entirely possible that it does refer to him, but when it was removed the second time, I decided to leave it at that. Bowser (SSBB): My bad. I got completely the wrong end of the stick. We all make mistakes. Up smash: Every character can DACUS. I quote from the DACUS page: "Any character can do it, but only certain characters gain a noteworthy addition to their attack strategies because of it." Every Up smash can be used to DACUS, so there's no point putting that in. It would have been more useful for me to put the word "useful" before "DACUS", so again, my fault. Pichu: I corrected my own mistake then reworded it to make the meaning clearer... I don't see how that could possibly count against me. Meta Knight (SSBB): My argument was that the line "His low weight means that his jumps don't have to use much force to make him move, giving Meta Knight a weakness not seen in many other characters." made no sense without then explaining it. Both lines should have been put into the trivia section (which you later did), but it shouldn't have been removed. At least partly my fault. Puff Up: I think I took umbrage at the fact that Phayz changed "it" to "she", but then described Jigglypuff as an "it" (never as "she") in the stuff that he added. I personally think that the article was fine before, and that the stuff that was didn't add anything new to it. Pokémon (universe): I could have been wrong with that, but it was more likely that the previous figure was correct. I would've asked the person who added the first figure to cite their sources if I'd been around at the time, but seeing as it had been there for a while, I presumed that it had been cleared. Talk:Zero Suit Samus: My fault entirely, but, as you said, I then corrected it. Also, if my actions drove that particular IP away, I apologise, but IPs can change, and they might just be editing under a new one now. User talk:24.86.86.211: I'd seen MarioGalaxy's "friend's" talk pages tagged for deletion so many times that I presumed that IPs weren't allowed talk pages. Again, my fault. Since then I read up what pages should and shouldn't be deleted, and realised that it doesn't fall under any of the categories for deletion. I also read the other policies just to If you think any of my reverts were unjustified, just undo them and explain on my talk page. I don't mind being told that I've done something wrong, though I do have a tendency to WoT in response... Some of your points come from a while ago, and since then I have learned a lot about wikiing. Feel free to rebut any part of my rebuttal with which you disagree. PenguinofDeath 20:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Why bother he's gonna get adminship from shadowcrest anyways so why even bother voting. And depending on your perspective, this could be good, so try to SW:AGF me now.Smoreking^(T) _(c) 19:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  Because I'm not going to resolve this unless C.Hawk falls off the face of the internet.... like I've already told you twice. Knock it off with the unfounded accusations of bias, they're annoying and retarded. Shadowcrest 19:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• More of a Question. But I'd like to hear from a potential sysop anyway what you think should be done about 13375poolR. There is no one right answer to this question, but do give justifications for whatever answer you come up with. This is one of those fun little tests I can give to people who request adminship... Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 20:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  Now there's a good question. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 20:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  A good idea. Miles (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  Sweet, a test of judgement. I'm guessing this is the deciding factor?L33t Silvie ^{I see wat u did thar...}

  Only a handful of his edits haven't included nonsense or made-up history, but the rest of them usually contain a valid point, no matter how buried under gibberish it is. If he were just to be warned that unless he cut back on the nonsense/made-up history he would be blocked (as his comments sometimes seriously disrupt debates), I fear he would simply ignore it. I think that if it were explained to him that he has the potential to be a very good contributor, and that if he were to just cut back on the nonsense and use a slightly less aggressive tone, then his contributions wouldn't just be ignored. As it stands, because of his reputation, he isn't taken very seriously. If he wants that to change then he would probably not ignore a message like the explanation above. If he doesn't want to be taken seriously, then he would just ignore it, continue adding nonsense into pages, and risk getting blocked. I'd give him the above explanation, and if he didn't cut back on the nonsense, block him for a short period of time and explain that disruptive comments are not appreciated, and that he'd get blocked again if he continued being disruptive. If he did continue, I think a much longer ban would be appropriate, given the number of warnings and blocks that he's ignored in the past. I wouldn't want him to get perma-banned, because even though some of his edits border on trollish, and some are offensive, he's clearly intelligent enough to realise that he's getting himself into trouble - those edits which weren't nonsensical were in fact sensible, in one of his edits he referred to friction coefficients, and he seems to know a lot of history, he just deliberately jumbles it up - he simply doesn't care what the consequences of getting himself into trouble are. I think that if he could be persuaded that editing constructively is more fun and far more rewarding than being disruptive, then he could be a useful contributor. In short: I don't think of him as a vandal, and he's certainly not a lost cause. PenguinofDeath 21:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  I hate to steal CH's thunder, but I felt like I needed to address this. Pool's closed guy has been blocked 4 times already (the longest being 2 weeks) and has obviously been warned many times before. Does this change your answer at all? Cheezperson {talk}stuff 23:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  I know how many times he's been blocked, and that he's already been warned, and the fact that CHawk has already told him pretty much what I proposed he should be told, I just don't think that he should've been blocked before CHawk had said that. The fact that he edits so infrequently means that even a 2 week ban isn't that long to him, making finding a suitable ban length difficult, but it also reduces the severity of his disruptive ways. I don't think he's that big a problem, but I do appreciate the fact that he's a trouble maker, so action should be taken to make him stop causing trouble. The course of action I would take I described above. Tell him again that he could be a good user, and if he ignores it, block him from editing, and if he returns to his old ways after the block, give him a longer block. People who like to just cause trouble tend to go away if you ignore them or give them longer bans each time. As I said, it's clear enough that he's got the potential to be good user that he shouldn't be perma-banned. Also, his name's 13375poolR - why do you insist on calling him "pool's closed guy"? PenguinofDeath 00:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  And I quote "I do appreciate the fact that he's a trouble maker..." I'm assuming that's a typo and you meant to say "don't appreciate"? --71.30.4.109 18:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  No, it's not a typo. I appreciate the fact that he deliberately causes trouble, I just don't think that he causes enough trouble to get stressed over. He doesn't do anything that's really deserving of a block (except maybe "inserting false information") but he is very disruptive. As I said: "I don't think he's that big a problem, but I do appreciate the fact that he's a trouble maker, so action should be taken to make him stop causing trouble." If I'd said "don't appreciate", it wouldn't have made sense. Apologies if I wasn't very clear. PenguinofDeath 19:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  OH I SEE! According to Webster's Dictionary, appreciate has two definitions 1.) to admire greatly and with understanding (what I though you meant) and 2.) to be fully aware of. You were referring to the second definition, weren't you? 71.30.4.109 21:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  Indeed I was - I am aware of his trouble-making ways, but I do not admire them (though I don't think he's as bad as some other users do). Again, sorry if I wasn't very clear. PenguinofDeath 21:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)