Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Penwhale

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

Penwhale

Final (67/20/5); Originally scheduled to end 22:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penwhale (talk · contribs) - I am glad to submit Penwhale as a candidate for adminship. He has been an active contributor since 2005, and has lots of edits and experience. As evident from his talk page archives, he is often helpful to other users and he remains civil. Penwhale is a clerk for the Arbitration Committee, and has contributed to various arbitration cases and made the process run smoothly. With this much experience and familiarity with Wikipedia customs and policies, I am confident that he would make a great administrator. Melsaran (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to contribute further into AfD and DRV, as well as RFPP/AIAV work, which I did for a period of time. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 22:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My editing could be seen as in phases. I started of contributing to various articles here and there. Then for a period of time, I did RC patrol. Lately I've been mostly focusing on assisting the Arbitration Committee with arbitration cases. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 22:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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: My biggest "conflict" was when I was caught during this RfAr case, which is rather interesting because of the fact that it was a case where I would've supported a viewpoint but did not actively participate in the actual conflict. For the record, my involvement in the linked case was only to provide factual evidence on the case. Otherwise, my conflicts are generally with editors who repeated vandalize pages. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 22:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional Question(s) from LessHeard vanU
4. Do you anticipate a greater presence in article space than in the past?
A:　I edit articles that interest me as I have information about them (example being the 2004 Tour de France), however, my interests rapidly shift sometimes, and as such, I do not have a lot of edits/page. I do plan to work on doing more translate work (Chinese/Japanese -> English), but regarding articles, I prefer to layout a foundation for others to work on and then collaborate with them(my non-native English sometimes prevents me from improving articles).
Don't be so modest. Your English is excellent.--Chaser - T 19:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5.Assuming that the answer to Q.4. is anything other than, "Yes, I have decided to forgo ArbCom clerking and want to make good use of the free time now available" why do you feel you have the need for the tools? Please note that while I recognise that need is not a criteria for possession of the mop, and I certainly deem you trustworthy, I am interested in why you accepted the nomination.
A: If you haven't noticed, regarding ArbCom clerking, I generally take on the cases that other clerks have recused in (noticed the 2 latest ones) which are generally touchy subjects. In fact, during the last few months I've clerked a very limited number of cases. That aside, apart from the "me having mop = I'd be able to help more" typical response, mop would help be further regarding the occasional ArbCom cases that do come my way as well as the VIP/AIV/AfD presence (which I admit I have not been a regular contributor to lately). It isn't so much as me "needing" the mop, more as "mop would help me do my job better". - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 04:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from User:White Cat
6. Although you have answered a similar question on your Wikipedia:Editor review, has your time as an ArbCom clerk helped you grow as a wikipedian? Do you think you would be able to preform difficult admin tasks involving conflicts such as dealing with content related tasks? How has your time as an ArbCom clerk help prepare you for adminship?
First, my answer from WP:ER was First, being an ArbCom clerk means that people sometimes have heated arguments on your talk page depending on the case in question. It certainly helps me, as an editor, to remain neutral and not get swayed by the parties in question. Also, it helps to see that "oh, this argument started from this, maybe I should try to avoid getting in a situation like that" ... Now, with that said, I do believe that people need the chance to look at an argument from an outside point of view (as administrators should perform their duty with neutrality, abiding by the NPOV policy). Since I tend to avoid editing in the areas that I have firm beliefs in (I've stayed away from China-Taiwan issues since this RfA), I believe that my views wouldn't be clouded by prejudice. ArbCom cases appear because people's application and understanding of policy is different -- and serving as a clerk has the advantage of seeing how people trusted by the community see the policy has (which is how the majority of the editors view most of the time). - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 21:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Penwhale before commenting.

Discussion

  • With regards to "need for/use of tools": Penwhale's arbitration clerking would be benefitted by him becoming an admin for several reasons. First, when cases close, parties often need to banned for certain periods of time. Also, sometimes articles that have been placed on article probation or had their main edit warriors banned can be unprotected, at least experimentally. In addition to this, occasionally personal information added to the case pages needs to be deleted from the history, and quickly. As one of the people who has made blocks for Penwhale, I assert that it would be very helpful if he had admin tools to aid in his clerking. Picaroon (t) 01:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting - I'm not particularly familiar with the role of arbitration clerks, but from the above comment it sounds like they act as bailiffs as well as court clerks - that is, they implement bans etc. imposed by the ArbCom. To be honest, my instinctive reaction was "why does a clerk need the admin tools?" but the above clarifies the reasons why. WaltonOne 13:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to some of the editors below regarding my inactivity, I should mention that I am an international student and my editing level does go down when school is not in session. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 18:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support as nominator. Melsaran (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. Marlith T/C 23:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Your mainspace contributions are disappointing, but there is no reason to believe the tools would be abused. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 23:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. I would like to see a greater range of more traditional edits, but do not believe the nom will abuse the tools. Adminship is not a big deal. Cheers, :) MikeReichold 23:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. The candidate's demonstrated commitment to the project over a period of years coupled with his experience as an arbitration clerk convince me that there is no risk the tools would be misused. I trust that the candidate would begin by performing administrator actions primarily in his current areas of expertise even as he continues to grow as an editor and expand his range of activities. Newyorkbrad 23:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support It's been said before, adminship is no big deal. Penwhale looks extremely unlikely to abuse the tools, and even if use of them is not constant, it doesn't adversely affect anyone. Good luck! --Benchat 23:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - I'm not concerned that this admin will abuse the tools. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I disagree with Ryan below - I think 30+ edits to RPP and AIV, none of which resulted in a murder-suicide pact, is enough. He has my support, and anyone who can do arbitration clerk work must have a good adminship attitude :) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 00:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Penwhale has consistently showed hard work and dedication to our project, and I have no doubts that we can trust him with the tools. --krimpet⟲ 00:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong support. Not just because we're both clerks, but because it is so incredibly obvious that Penwhale wouldn't misuse the tools. See also my comment in the discussion section. Picaroon (t) 01:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Judging by Picaroon's, Newyorkbrad's, and Krimpet's comments, this is a decent editor. My observations of this user are positive too. Acalamari 01:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - I don't think he will go mental and block me. Tim Vickers 02:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support per NYB and Picaroon - no need for tools/inexperience is nonsense. Majorly (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I trust this user to use the tools properly. Keegantalk 03:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. As Picaroon pointed out above, being an arbitration clerk is a need for administrative tools. Simple checklist. No concerns about incivility, no bad decision-making, appears level-headed, seems to be a good guy, has clue (blatantly stolen off Riana), seems to be familiar with policy, and is dedicated into improving the encyclopedia. As he has all of the above, support. And for the editors who wish to see more mainspace contributions, please keep in mind that the basic reason for this is to know an editor is familiar with content based policies. As an arbitration clerk, I gather that Penwhale will be familiar with this, as he had experience with content-related disputes. --DarkFalls talk 03:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support From what I can see, there is definitely a need for the tools. Captain panda 04:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support – I'm surprised he's not one. He should be. Being selected by the Arbitration Committee as a clerk shows their trust of him, and I personally trust him; he is a valuable contributor, if not in article space. He has a need for the tools. — madman bum and angel 04:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - Requiring XfD participation for every admin hopeful seems unnecessary to me. Strong editor, long-term editing implies experience. Nothing alarming noted in contribs. No reason for me to oppose. LaraLove 05:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Weak Support Ryan has a point that he does not have much experience in admin areas, but I do not believe this user will abuse his tools. The one thing I look for in an admin is reliability; can he be trusted with the tools. Since this user can be trusted, I am supporting his Rfa. I would have a stronger support for him if he was more active in admin areas though. Good luck!--SJP 06:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I don't feel strongly that he shouldn't become an admin.--KerotanLeave Me a Message Have a nice day :) 07:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support per NYB. But more mainspace if you get a chance; you do write well, and it would be great to see you contribute to articlespace. As W.marsh said below, you need experience with articles in order to be able to judge content effectively -- Samir 08:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Although there are valid concerns raised by other editors, I believe this user can use the tools in the areas they are most familiar. With AIV and vandal fighting, more participation in future would be good. Phgao 09:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Obviously trustworthy, thus should have the mop. LessHeard vanU 10:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Trustworthy editor. Has clue. Sticks around despite witnessing the madness at RfArb everyday. Not big deal. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support I am confident that this user would make a fine admin. It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Noting the comments in the discussion section above, an ArbCom clerk is not just analogous to a court clerk, but also to a bailiff; that is, they implement bans and other remedies imposed by the ArbCom. Admin tools would seem to be necessary, or at least very useful, in that field of activity; as such, I suggest that he be given the tools, regardless of his mainspace editing. WaltonOne 13:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Weak support There is just enough in other areas to outweigh the lack of mainspace editing, in my opinion. GDonato (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Wikihermit 22:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. I trust Penwhale with the tools. Cbrown1023 talk 00:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support The candidate operates in a steady and sensible way. Tyrenius 02:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Why the hell not? I mean, I understand mainspace contributions are important, but cripes, this is ridiculous. I trust Penwhale with the tools, and given his limited mainspace contributions, I trust he won't be using them too often in mainspace. Seems simple enough to me. Ral315 » 05:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - His activities at WP:AIV seem to show he knows what he'sa doing there - the last 6 users he reported were all blocked the same day. In addition, his activities as an arbitration clerk, per User:Picaroon, seem to indicate that making him an admin is highly important. Od Mishehu 08:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - while virtually no actual editing could be considered a problem, this is a special case. I don't think Penwhale would misues the tools, and there's a genuine need for them. Neil ム 10:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Probably trustworthy. Moreschi Talk 12:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Of all the people who I've seen nominated here that I thought was an admin, Penwhale is the biggest shock of them all. Go you! Kwsn(Ni!) 15:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support He's been here forever, has the requisite experience, and admin tools for an ArbCom clerk are useful. Shalom Hello 21:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support as a long-time editor. No problems. Bearian 22:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support I look forward to being blocked by Penwhale in the future. SchmuckyTheCat
  39. Support - I see no indication this user will misuser the tools. --Haemo 03:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support seen them around before and looks unlikely to abuse the tools. Resurgent insurgent 06:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. With all due respect to the opposers, I believe that Penwhale's experience and usefulness at AE will justify the tools. I fully trust Penwhale to have enough experience with disputes to be able to handle anything content-based that comes his way. Daniel 06:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. No big deal. AKAF 06:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. I have no doubt Penwhale would make an excellent admin. Good luck. --Grandmaster 07:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Penwhale is a very experienced and helpful wikipedian, would surely be an excellent administrator. E104421 13:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support As per Newyorkbrad and see no concerns in track.Pharaoh of the Wizards 17:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - he should be just fine. I see no substantive issues here that would sway me. His non-mainspace track record is overweighed by his stellar work at ArbCom and other areas. I've seen him filing prot. requests at WP:RPP, also - Alison ❤ 00:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - He will be a good admin, I have convidence in him Baku87 11:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - I thought he was already. Time in grade is a very weak reason to oppose an otherwise perfectly fine candidate. --Rocksanddirt 16:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong Support Already working at the level of an admin in many ways. Asked for and given one of the most difficult jobs on the project, ArbCom Clerk. Excellent knowledge of Wikipedia policy. Interacts well with users. A fantastic team player. All new admins learn on the job. He clearly is smart enough to be an admin and is cautious enough to ask for help if needed. Not giving him the tools while he makes some arbitrary number of edits to articles makes no sense at all because he can make good use of the sysop tools now. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Weak support The opposers have some legitimate concerns, but there's no risk of abuse and the limited prior experience in DRV, etc. suggest low risk of unintentional misuse.--Chaser - T 19:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support, after reviewing Penwhale's contributions and concluding that, although contribution to article space is desirable, it is not an absolute must when a candidate has shown deep knowledge of policy as he has. Trustworthiness doesn't appear to be an issue here - now that is an absolute must to me. Phaedriel - 04:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support No reason not to give him the bit. - Merzbow 07:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support per above. I'm not convinced by the opposers' arguments. --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. support I'd like to see more mainspace work, but I trust PW to use the tools wisely. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 19:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Do I trust Penwhale with the buttons? Absolutely. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. The job of an admin is to administer wikipedia which basically is the enforcement of policies. By spending a decent amount of time as an ArbCom clerk in my view has taught the candidate all about our policies and guidelines and how it is interpreted by ArbCom. So I feel this demonstrates that the candidate is more than qualified for the job despite having a less than ideal article namespace edits. ちい！ -- Cat chi? 20:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support based on my experience of this user, SqueakBox 01:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support No concerns. Having been a member of Wikipedia for a long time, I believe enough experience has been gained (despite periods of not much editing) The tools would help him as a clerk, so why not? ♠TomasBat 14:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Do not believe will abuse the tools. Davewild 15:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Seems like a good, hard-working contributor with no reasons to be concerned. Ronnotel 20:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Likes manga. Darkoneko 22:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Weak support. I share the concerns of many of the opposers - ideally admins should have experience of article writting and content disputes. That being said, I believe Penwhale has shown himself to be trustworthy and responsible. I think he'll confine himself to acting as an admin in areas where he is experienced and avoid doing so in those where he is not. WjBscribe 23:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support: Mainspace editing isn't the be all and end all of being an administrator, it's really just a fad RfA is going through, a few months ago, Penwhale would have breezed through with only a couple of Opposing comments. Anybody with half a clue can delete shit and protect stuff, resolving editing disputes is more difficult, but there's no real suggestion people with huge mainspace edit counts are any better at resolving editing disputes than any other administrator. Nick 23:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. I see no reason to oppose. --Carnildo 07:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Has an excellent 16-minute adminship record; seriously, I don't see why to not trust an Arbcom clerk. Arbcom is very time consuming, IMO, and Penwhale has done mainspace work in the past. I trust Penwhale to admin. Maxim(talk) 15:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Experienced candidate who there's every reason to think will make a fine admin. Chick Bowen 16:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support, I usually don't !vote on RfAs of users I don't know, but I find much of the reasoning in the oppose section so ridiculous that I need to express my opinion. There is not a single reason to suspect he would abuse the tools listed anywhere on this page, and there is none I can find in his contribution record. Prodego talk 16:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. I'm sorry Penwhale, I really can't support you at this time. You do such a great job as an arbitration clerk, but that's all that you do. You have very little experience in area's that require admin tools. I've tried to tell you a number of times before that you need to broaden your editing if you wanted to go for adminship. I'd suggest you may even stop your job as a clerk for a while and branch out. Get involved in AfD's, comment at AN/I and do a bit of vandal fighting and you'll pick up things a lot easier. Hopefully, if you take this advice, you'll be ready in a few months. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that he has 34 edits to WP:AIV. Melsaran (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And 34 more to RPP. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't exactly a lot guys, and that's not saying every single resport ended with a protection or a block. I share the same sentiment as Agueybana below, that if this passes, I'm sure you'll be fine, I just don't think the experience is there at the minute. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If this isn't about trust, but first hand experience, why is this an oppose rather than neutral? LessHeard vanU 01:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But this is about trust, if he hasn't got the experience in admin areas, then I can't trust him using the tools effectively. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Equally sorry here, man. If this passes, I'm sure you'll make an admin, but I just don't think you're ready for the tools at this moment. I believe that mainspace editing is important in the administration of this site, and your participation in that namespace is almost non-existent. Please participate more at XfDs and WP:RA, and, if this RfA fails, you'll have my full support. Please do keep up the clerking, tough, as it is excellent. --Agüeybaná 23:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my question to Ryan, above. LessHeard vanU 01:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I believe these concerns can, in fact, affect the quality of an admin's work. --Agüeybaná 01:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Agüeybaná, little mainspace contribution in past 3 months. T Rex | talk 00:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my question to Ryan, above. LessHeard vanU 01:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per [1]... admins concern me most with how they work with articles. Says he wants to work with AFD and DRV, but someone who edits articles so infrequently doesn't have my trust in dealing with them as an admin... sorry. --W.marsh 04:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per lack of overall experience. Jmlk17 06:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose — Your mainspace contributions do not inspire me, rather they worry me. Frankly this trend is becoming a bit tiresome (the "get in with a gang"). And perhaps I'm the only one, but this whole "clerk" business is pretty funny (we just need RfA clerks now ;-)).
    For the United Federation of Users,
    Matthew 11:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose and I really am sorry about this one; you have only 10 mainspace contributions since June (and your mainspace history shows a lack of understanding of what constitutes a minor edit), I can't see any significant article-writing/editing experience and you don't give any examples in Q2. I believe that unless an editor's experienced for themselves just how hard it is to write & research valid articles without violating policy, they're not in a position to empathise with users having content challenged/deleted — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Per Iridescent mainly. I feel strongly that admins need to have a decent background in editing articles. Some of the most discouraging conflicts I've seen happen between editors that are steady content creators and admins that don't spend much time outside that role. I'd like us to stay as close to the editor/admin model as possible and try to avoid developing separate "classes" of user here. Iridescent puts it really well so I won't repeat it. RxS 15:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Per Irdescent as well. The fact that you haven't contributed recently could pose a problem. Your inactivity for roughly a month is a red flag when you decide to come back and apply for adminship. Sorry, but please come back and try again once you improve your mainspace edits. Icestorm815 16:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - I'm sorry, generally I don't like to oppose based on mainspace edits - my own RfA was vulnerable to that - however, in this case I think the contributions are sufficiently low as to fail to clearly show that the user is in touch w/the community's norms. I appreciate and honor the work that Penwhale has done w/ArbCom, but think it would be best to spend some time doing 'pedia editing for a while. There is no question in my mind that I would support this user in the future. - Philippe | Talk 03:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Weak Oppose. The number of mainspace edits and their frequency is dissapointing. You don't have enough AIV edits either, but it isn't like you would abuse the tools. I just can't support with the lack of mainspace experience. •Malinaccier• T/C 23:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, the amount of time spent reporting people to AIV is pretty much irrelevant to removing them because you've dealt with the problems. Some people just don't to RC patrol very well (such as myself; every time I attempted it, someone beat me to the punch), and massive amounts of AIV edits are usually tied to doing RC patrol. I'm not saying your argument is invalid, I'm just giving you something to think about. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess you are right about the AIV edits...RC patrol is the main source of AIV experience, but if you know the general policy, you won't need AIV experience...I've removed them from my reason for opposing. I still believe that the user needs more mainspace edits, however. •Malinaccier• T/C 23:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose I think that had Penwhale wanted to use the tools for arbcon clerking functions s/he would have mentioned that in question 1. Evidently, s/he wants to use them in Afds and DRVs and in vandalism and page protection duties where there is a lack of experience that could normally be mitigated by extensive article editing, but alas there is much less there too than would give comfort. Carlossuarez46 00:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per last 50 mainspace contributions going back to June. This doesn't enhance my opinion either. -- Y not? 10:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Because of two post closure strike outs? I have made the same mistake myself - it isn't obvious from the guidelines that the vote is open until closed (sometime) after the indicated time. Oh, well... I suppose we all have our differing reasons for making our decisions. LessHeard vanU 12:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Love of formality + lapses in knowledge of policy and practice + clear failure to understand consensus = bad idea to give user administrative tools. -- Y not? 03:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose based on lack of article work, sorry. I'm willing to deal with somewhat of an imbalance toward project space editing, but not that much. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 14:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. You need more experience editing articles. --- RockMFR 21:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose simply not enough mainspace, not many edits and the edits that are there are skinny. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per above. This is an encyclopedia, not a bureaucracy and we have nearly total disinterest in article building. Experience in main space is needed so concerns in the process are understood and that tools are applied correctly. --JayHenry 18:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per User:Y. --John 19:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per Ryan P and Y. --After Midnight 0001 12:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose with deep regrets per question 2. Seems a fine person but admins should have some interest in article writing in order to be able to make a sound judgment on many issues that involve the use of admin buttons. --Irpen 20:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Dead Neutral - Ryan has a point there. I don't really want to emphasise editcountisis (which some people might think of me as a hypocrite), but I'm not really too sure about this user's knowledge about admin tools. However, I'm definately sure this user won't abuse the tools, so I stay dead neutral. --Hirohisat Kiwi 01:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry about how people perceive you, just make an honest determination on whether the candidate can be trusted with admin tools. With regards to his knowledge of the admin tools, all I can say is that I've interacted with Penwhale a lot, and he's a smart fellow. I'm sure he's picked up on an admin's role, even though he doesn't have as many articles as some, and the numerous pages regarding adminship are always there to fall back on. Picaroon (t) 01:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - Ugh, I so want to support. It sounds like he could use the tools for clerking. And while I don't doubt his intelligence, or ability to learn, being an admin means making decisions of discernment. WIthout the experience of such discussions (such as XfD discussions, or even just general talk page discussions), I don't know... On the other hand, as a clerk, I would presume he's had to read over mountains of such text. Hence, I'm split and stuck in neutral. - jc37 09:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - good arbcom clerk, but I can't support now due to the lack of mainspace edits. M.(er) 05:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral, fine judgment and interaction with others, but we shouldn't have admins without article-writing experience IMO. Bishonen | talk 17:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  5. Neutral - Wikipedia-space participation is simply excellent, although the mainspace participation is dwarfed in comparison. You need more article experience for me. Lradrama 08:31, 20 September 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Penwhale&oldid=1147979897"