Smashpedia:Requests for adminship/PenguinofDeath

===PenguinofDeath (talk &bull; contribs &bull; edit count &bull; 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: That's all I have to say. Your turn.  Penguin  of  Death   15:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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

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.   Cheez person  { 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.  Cloned  Pickle  19:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * [18:20]  I submitted an RfA! [18:20]  have your say on my RfA! [18:20]  I promise, if you support it, I'll stop saying things like that
 * this is why I am opposed to the feared Penguin of Death becoming a sysop on this wiki which I do not contribute to. --Warwizzles 19:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak Oppose: 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 unneccessary, 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 versisions have citation). There are possibly others due to how many of your edits were reverts. If you revert when it's unneccesary, 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 rebutt 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. 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 does 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 it 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.   Penguin  of  Death   20:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)

Comments

 * 1) Before I make my vote, can someone tell me which sysops are active right now?  Cheez person  { 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.  Penguin  of  Death   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!  Cheez person  { talk } stuff ''' 16:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)