Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pablothepenguin

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

Final (0/10/1); ended 19:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC) per WP:SNOW Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC) Scheduled to end 18:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pablothepenguin (talk · contribs) – Pablothepenguin, a reasonable user with reasonable values, he spends his free time thinking up new ideas to improve the wiki we know and love. When he's not doing that, he's probably busy trying to make himself even more brilliant than before. With many improvements to the wiki under his name, he know what he wants and he is determined to be the best.Pablothepenguin (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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: I have good intentions here, and will be heavily invloved in many discussions and anti-vandalism projects. If I find a user who vandalised the wiki continually despite warnings, I will be sure to block their account accordingly. Obviously I also need to process unblock requests as well and in that, I will be very good at making a desision about unblocking the user or not.

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

A: I would say this would be a tie between my improvements to bus articles and the local interest stuff I do on articles about Scotland and Ayrshire. Those edits seem to me to be very useful and provide more information for people who would appreciate such things.

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: I believe there was this bizarre episode in which I became obsessed with American pizza restaurants with arcade machines, and ended up with a block because of it. however, after spending a few months conducting anti-stress experiments and improving myself, I quickly understood the problems, and was no longer stressed. Apparently, I deal with stress very very quickly, and I never felt like that again. I entered a sort of golden period in Mid 2015 where everything was perfect, and no bad things happened at Wikipedia because of me. This period still continues to this day, and no end is in sight. In the future in the highly unlikely event of stress, I will return to normality in less than 24 hours and will come to regret my actions and an apology shall be forthcoming. Of course, the presiding likelihood is that if I do get a bit stressed, I will not do anything against the rules of Wikipedia anyway, so very few issues should arise.

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 also forbidden. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

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

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

1. Oppose: 409 edits are too little for me to demonstrate understanding in Wikipedia processes and adminship. Also, having been unblocked just half a year ago and an even older Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pablothepenguin page, while old, should be walked away from with a solid record of editing and participation.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose recommend WP:SNOW close Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me!} 18:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose per WP:SNOW. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose – you really needed to run by WP:ORCP first... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. Moral Support - Thanks for stopping by, but I don't think you would be right for an administrative position. I'm not fit for one at this time either. But I am glad you do want to help Wikipedia. This RfA will likely close, but if you can increase your activity, and show some really great work, you could definitely be an admin in the future. There is a lot to do on Wikipedia, but right now, you haven't done too much. Don't get blocked, follow policy, make some cool articles, and help fight vandalism, and in a few years, you have a great shot of being an admin. But you don't need to be an admin to be a great contributor. :) --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 18:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose as per SNOW - Sorry but you need alot more than 400 edits ...., I would strongly suggest you read WP:RFA and the related pages, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose per WP:SNOW, simply too few edits. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose not experienced enough to be an admin; WP:NOTYET. -- ChamithN (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose you have very few edits and edit rather infrequently. I would recommend you read WP:Advice for RfA candidates. This is a case of WP:NOTYET, although any RfA would call into question the block and sockpuppet investigations, and those certainly do not help this one. As with many others, I think a SNOW close is appropriate. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 19:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose: I advise everyone who self-nominates or is considering a self-nomination to read WP:RfA/SN. Esquivalience ^t 19:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. The nomination statement reads like a joke. I'm pretty sure the five opposers (as of now) have been successfully trolled. In any event, please close this RFA now that the joke has been made. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   What joke? This is a serious request. Please don't spread around false accusations. Pablothepenguin (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   @Reaper Eternal: This editor had ambitions back when they were asking to be un-blocked. Clearly they lack competence and clue. Daniel Case, what do you think? Chris Troutman (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   If it's a serious request, then you squarely shot yourself in the foot, inexperience notwithstanding.  Wisdom89 ^♦talk 18:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   How did I do that? shooting oneself in the foot is not easy. Pablothepenguin (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Of course it's not. In any case, see WP:BOOMERANG. -- ChamithN (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2016 (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.