Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Griffinofwales

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

Griffinofwales (talk · contribs)

End date: 01:02 13/10/09 (UTC)

• Ended: 01:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• Result: Not promoted. Chenzw  Talk  01:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, some of you are probably coughing up Coke or Sprite or some other liquid right now, but please ... bear with me! Few people have generated comment like Griffin has done. The emotions of editors regarding him encompase most if not all of human emotion. Likely I'll receive a few emails asking if I've stopped taking my meds after I nominate Griffin, but please let me make the case first. This user came to us on May 7, 2009 and promptly told us "I hate simple (en is the best)"! Since that ignominious statement Griffin has changed a great deal. He has become more than an active user, he has come to care about the project in a way I think he probably didn't expect to. The vast majority of the time Griffin has followed the rules of the wiki and has complied with consensus; straying only (quite frankly) when some of the rest of us would probably done also. Opinionated, yes; so what? Contentious at times, yes; but it takes all kinds, and that's a good thing! However, ... likely to wheel war, no! Likely to break the wiki, no! Likely to abuse the tools, no; I don't think so. Likely to do his best? Yes! I further think that Griffin can deal perfectly fairly with a situation that may involve a personal interest. I think that Griffin is a net positive as an editor and his promotion to sysop would bring some much needed flavor into the ranks. fr33kman ^talk 00:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom by Maximillion Pegasus - Griffofwales has been on seWP since May of this year. During this time he has been an extremely productive and active user and would benefit the community greatly from the addition of the admin tools. In short, he is a very qualified candidate with plenty of experience in all areas of the project. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: I accept, Griffinofwales (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional from NonvocalScream (talk):

Q: Optional in the way of, I won't hold it against you if you don't answer. Here is are my questions... As far as blocking, how tolerant are you for mistakes... and are you apt to giving chances to editors? For example... if an editor who is indef blocked for vandalism and generic disruption comes back 4 months later, requesting unblock, admitting the misdeeds and promising not to recur, would you consider unblocking? Alternatively, for demonstrated immaturity disruptive to the project, how much tolerance for that?

A: (1) Mistakes? Users don't mistakenly vandalize articles several times. (2) It depends on the type of vandalism and the amount of time the user has spent blocked. Although I would grant unblock in some cases, I'm not sure in which cases I would grant or deny unblock. (3) Yes. (4) I would consider unblock also, but I wouldn't do it solo. I would request the opinions of the blocking admin and the community.

Q: With regards to protecting pages... How do you decide to protect a page? In what circumstance, if any, would you find it acceptable to protect a page you are involved with?

A: (1) Edit warring by many users where blocking is not a feasible option, user space by user request, and in the case of heavy and persistent vandalism. (2) By involved with, I am assuming as a party to a discussion/dispute about the article. Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own position in a content dispute. So, the answer is No, unless for some reason, immediate protection was required, and another administrator was not there to protect it.

Q: Do you have to provide administrator assistance to all who asks? When would it be ok, if ok at all, to tell an editor "No, I won't be able to help, try the list of admins, of the administrators' noticeboard"?

A: (1) No. (2) It is ok to say such a thing, and although I do not expect to get into such a situation, it could happen.

Q: What is a policy, and a guideline, how do you apply them?

A: (1) Policies should be followed unless they are preventing someone from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. (2) Guidelines are suggestions that help users in their editing. For example, what would we do without MOS? (3) If a user does not follow policy after being warned (this is assuming IAR does not apply), they should be blocked. If a user does not follow guideline, they should be notified, but beyond that, nothing should happen.

Optional from Jamesofur (talk) : like Scream, totally optional. If answered you should know that in general the answer is less important then the explanation and I don't know is a totally acceptable answer in the long run.

Q: What is the difference between a block and a ban?

A: Blocks are made by admins. Bans are made by the community, usually for project disruption. I thought I explained it well enough since most know that the community can not block someone, but here is my revised response. A block is a technical measure used by admins to stop an account from editing. A ban (topic/article/full) is a decleration that formally bans someone from an area or all of the wiki. It is decided by the community.

Q: How much do you expect (at the moment) to change permanently protected areas such as the regex blacklists and the mediawiki interface. If you expect to do some how much do you already know about the syntax used and how quickly do you expect to dive into it? why?

A: Not very much if any at all.

Q: How many warning's should a vandal have before being blocked?

A: Depends on how many previous warnings, severity of vandalism, blocked at other projects etc. Usually I report a user to VIP after 2-3 warnings, although 0-1 is something I would do if necessary, although I don't think I have done it before.

Additional Optional Questions from Katerenka:

Q: As an administrator, do you feel it's more important to abide by and enforce the letter or the spirit of policies and guidelines? Additionally, in the event that you feel a policy doesn't quite provide the best possible solution to a situation, would you use your administrative judgment to implement a different solution? Give an example if possible.

A: (1) More important than what? (2) Yes (addendum: What do you mean by administrative judgment?). Example (if I can think of one) will come later.

Is it more important to abide by and enforce the letter of the policies and guidelines or is it more important to enforce the spirit of said guidelines? Administrative judgment is fairly self-explanatory (or so I though), is basically WP:IAR - using your judgment in a situation you feel a policy/guideline doesn't provide the best solution to. Hope that helps, – Katerenka (talk • contribs) 21:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: (1) The latter. (2) That's what I thought you meant, but you might also have meant a special judgment administrators get. The answer to that is yes. I would use IAR if necessary.

Q: When should no consensus closed on AFDs default to keep, and when should they default to delete, and why?

A: My personal default would be keep. There was one case that I can think of where I would have defaulted to delete. It happened 2-3 months ago. EhJJ (I think) received an OTRS request. A BLP wanted their article off-wiki because it contained defamatory content (which was true). In such a case, default should be delete.

Q: When is it appropriate for an administrator to edit a fully protected page?

A: Since fully protected pages are usually protected because of an edit war or a content dispute, I can think of two reasons. One: To remove vandalism, copyrighted info, and attacks (defamation) on living people. Two: To make minor changes all parties agree on, or restoring to an uncontested version of the article.

1. fr33kman ^talk 00:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Extremely weak support. —MC8 (b · t) 22:14, Friday October 9 2009 (UTC)

1. Oppose As helpful as he may be, I believe that Griffin possess neither the amount of clue nor the mentality to effectively administrate. His blind adherence to written policy in the face of clear situations where policy should be ignored to better the encyclopedia is a large factor in my decision to oppose. Anyone can blindly follow others, it is the people that stand out from the crowd and put the improvement of the encyclopedia above policy that are the most effective administrators. Yes, policy is important, but it is not penultimate. Warmly, – Katerenka (talk • contribs) 01:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Griffin has made use of IAR (a much misunderstood guideline) when it made sense to do so. fr33kman ^talk 01:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Often misunderstood, but not in this case. Warmly, – Katerenka (talk • contribs) 01:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Can you give some examples of what you felt he was too strict about? fr33kman ^talk 01:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   "Too strict" is not necessarily the wording I would choose. However these two conversations are a start of what I was talking about. Yes, I know they were 3-4 months back, but I don't see that anything has changed since then. Griffin doesn't have the mentality to administrate, regardless of how much he helps out with vandalism/warnings. Having him as an admin is not something I am comfortable with as I believe it will be detrimental to the project. You, obviously disagree, but that's neither here nor there. Warmly, – Katerenka (talk • contribs) 01:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm much intrigued by your first example because what you see as a conversation that inclines you towards opposing, I see as proof positive that my trust in Griffin is justified. He showed a spirit of restraint in the use of the tools that is admirable. I am also one to AGF until proven otherwise. Yes, I am with JC in that certain editors can be blocked on sight, no warnings! I've done it myself many times. I think Griffin understands this and knows most of the times that it should be done. Yes, he does not know all the right moments to insta-block, but that only comes with experience doing the job. Remember, learning is best done by questioning and engaging your examples. Anyone can question anything I do, I welcome it! Your second example is amusing. JC made a semi-statement by leaving, Griffin made a semi-statement by commenting. So what?! We've all done that, me included, everyone actually! fr33kman ^talk 01:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm glad that you were amused. – Katerenka (talk • contribs) 02:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   :) fr33kman ^talk 02:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I won't badger you :) I would like for you to reconsider at your pleasure, if you like. I don't think GoW has shown us anything to tell us he is likely to abuse the tools, rather, I believe it is evidenced he might be hesitant to use them. And that does come with experience. VEry respectfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you for the way that you worded your comment, I appreciate your decorum. Unfortunately, I'm not going to change my mind on this as it is quite made up. Warmly, – Katerenka (talk • contribs) 02:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose. The 3RR block is too recent in my opinion. Too obsessive with edit counts at times. Too obsessive with process and focusing on minor, almost pointless things (like updating his edit standings on his user page as he was doing every day for awhile or updating the recent changes template within a minute of new RFDs, RFAs, etc.). He's too quick on the trigger at times when dealing with recent changes, so I believe this will lead to issues of too quick quick deletions. Either way (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   For clarification, is there an example on the quick trigger with regards to RC?. p.s. I secretly check my edit counts. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Here are some examples from the last month in his talk page and archives where people have confronted him about being too quick on the trigger: User_talk:Griffinofwales/Archive_1#Edit_conflict, User_talk:Griffinofwales/Archive_1#Could_you_please_stop..., User_talk:Griffinofwales/Archive_1#.28read_the_instructions.29, User talk:Griffinofwales/Archive 1#Reverting..., and User talk:Griffinofwales/Archive 1#About a warning you issued.... I believe that, if given the tools, he will delete articles without giving them a chance to develop which will discourage users. Either way (talk) 02:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I read all of those links you gave and not one surprised me. I saw a user who had questions, made mistakes, performed well, and listened to advice. I think that's a pretty good user. All of us should be open to question and also question that which we don't understand; this is and "open" project after all, right? It makes for an active and vital individual; one that we can use. I personally saw nothing there that makes be think that Griffin would be a poor admin; I've seen much worse from active, old-timer admins and editors. Rather I see a person who puts in a lot of hours, does a lot of good, causes a little disruption (don't we all from time-to-time), and has the need frequently to make use of the mop. He gets my support! fr33kman ^talk 03:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   This is very interesting actually. Some say that he's too impulsive, others that he shows too much restraint. Mixed together, I'd say they make a good admin. fr33kman ^talk 02:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I am actually surprised anyone would think he would be hesitant. He is always too impulsive and no matter how often he is told. And he is told about some of the things he does about 20 times, he keeps doing them. In fact I almost blocked him the other day for having ignored something that he had been warned about numerous times. He is lucky to even be on the wiki at the moment, let alone running or adminship. -DJSasso (talk) 14:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose Definitely not. Griffin views wiki as a bureaucracy, which it is not. He might have assimilated 6k edits, but there is hardly any article work. The 3RR Block is too concerning for me to support him now. As an admin, I think he won't be an asset to this wiki. However, I'll be ready to support him if he returns in a few months with a better knowledge of policy and a better idea of what Wikipedia is. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Answers aren't impressive either. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. No. And don't even think about trying to get me to change my mind. Goblin 08:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy![reply]

   Expansion, per DJSasso below and the completely unconvincing answers to the questions set. I've only been swayed more towards not supporting since making this comment. Quite frankly Griffin does not listen to advice given to him regarding his edits, and I echo the worries of others about him deleting things before people get a chance to complete them. As I have told him many times, why does he not just wait 10-15 minutes before editing new articles. It's even more annoying when it's established users getting the edit conflicts who have told him to stay away from their edits. This alone is a big problem, not taking on board things after people have told him many times. It does not set a great impression to new users, especially if no explanation for the changes is given (like we [should] do when we QD things, we should explain why.). I can see only bad coming from any potential promotion. Goblin 16:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]

   I always use an edit summary (or 99.9% of the time), and always provide a reason when I QD. Again, I no longer "pounce" on articles (see below). Griffinofwales (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   That's another reason; edit summaries are not for explaining precisely what you did, talk pages are. New users may not read QD tags or edit summaries, especially if they don't use the history or recent changes pages. Big orange bars on the other hand are harder to avoid... And yes, you do still pounce on articles. I watch the live RC feed pretty much 24/7 - I know what you do and don't do. You're not going to change my mind, so don't waste time commenting. Goblin 18:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]

5. Completely unsuitable. Majorly talk 13:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Why? fr33kman ^talk 04:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. Blindely follows written rules. Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy. I have a hard time thinking he should even be editing this wiki, nevermind being an admin. Unfortunately I can't think of a better example of someone I wouldn't want as an admin on this wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Examples? fr33kman ^talk 04:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7. Unfortunately, I feel I must oppose per Djsasso's reasoning. You do some good work, and I have quite a bit of respect for both your nominators, but I don't think you're ready to be an admin. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose further to what has already been stated, the candidate does not know the difference between a block and a ban and that's a huge red flag Soup Dish (talk) 11:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Actually I do, but I didn't explain clearly enough. I'll change my response. Griffinofwales2 (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9. Oppose Unsuitable for the flag. I do not trust this user enough to give him the sysop flag and because of the above reasons. Therefore, I oppose. Razorflame 21:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   More info? After all it is helpful to the candidate to receive criticism! :) fr33kman ^talk 04:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10. Weak oppose. I believe that Griffinofwales is an extremely hardworking user, but I feel that he's moving at a rate too fast. Plus, his block is quite recent. I would support him in future, but not now.-- Tdxiang 04:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What am I doing too fast? Griffinofwales (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

11. Oppose - I simply do not have the necessary trust in you as admin. You make sometimes more work than you solve. Too many unusful threads. At all per all other reasons above. Barras (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Examples? fr33kman ^talk 04:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (It's probably just my POV):1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Bot flag request for higher editcounties, 6. All imo unuseful threads. Barras (talk) 09:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, Fr33kman and Barras. I agree that 2, 4, 5, & 6 are not useful (and I do not do that anymore.) 1 was a reminder since the thread had been archived. IMO that was a useful thread, because the users that commented had agreed, so somebody had to move the tags. As for 3, IMO that was useful, because of the Meta policy, but I will probably not do it again. Now, as for BFRFHE, I did not do that for an edit count. That was stub-sorting (WP:SSP), how else is someone supposed to do it? But now, with my flagged account, that will not be a problem. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    @Griff, np! @Barras, thank you so much for giving examples! Examples are incredibly useful both to the candidate and to people taking part in the vote. fr33kman ^talk 01:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• At the moment I'm neutral, however, I'm leaning on supporting the candidate. The candidate has shown progress from when he first started, and a willingness to discuss. Both desirable in administrators. Also, I am comfortable with all the answers, save block and ban. But this one is easily confused anyway. Grif, a block is a technical measure, whereas a ban is a social measure (which can be enforced by a block). But yes, I'm leaning to support. The opposition without rationale does not sway me. Side note: The opposition telling GoW he is lucky to even be on the wiki, are appalling edits to this RFA. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I knew that (I've read the policy several times). Just didn't communicate clearly enough. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Feel free to think they are apalling, but people here play nice too much and we coddle bad editors. People need to speak the truth and not lead on bad editors who think they are actually doing something to help when their actions actually make more work for others. As for willingness to discuss, yes he shows that he is willing to discuss, and then blatantly ignores everything everyone tells him. Is he as bad as he was when he first got here, no. Does that mean he should be an admin, no. Of course not. Just because he is less bad than he was doesn't mean he should be an admin. We are far too free at giving out these bits on this wiki just because we want to be nice. (and the lucky to be on the wiki comment was in regards to the fact I almost blocked him for a week only a few days ago meaning he wouldn't be able to edit right now had I, let alone run for admin) -DJSasso (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Ultimately it's going to be down to the community to decide. Don't all get worked up down here in the comments section. Make your feelings clear up top and move along. This RFA will not close, out of respect to Griffon, per SNOW. If Griffon wants it closed, he can asked, and it will be done. Otherwise, it'll run its course. Done. With all this chatting, perhaps you should move along to the chat... I mean "talk" page? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• For those who are not admins, I just wanted to point out the Griffinofwales has over made over 500 QD tags and made at least a thousand reverts and warns. His contribs appear to be well distributed in Article space vs others (approx 3900 vs 2600). In many ways, I think Griffinofwales would make a good admin, and I'd probably support him if he had a little more experience. I don't think we're in need of admins and I think we've historically set the bar a bit low. Griffinofwales has unfortunately annoyed many users, and while I've gotten along with him fine, I'm uncertain if he'll be an effective admin. I'll reconsider supporting/opposing in a few days. Respectfully, EhJJ^TALK 21:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, I am not sure what you used to count his qd's but numbers are hard to go by as I know I have denied what I consider to be a large number of his qds (for a user that isn't all that new to a wiki). I don't know if others have as well, but its something you might want to look into if its pure numbers you are considering. This is one of the many reasons I am concerned with him, if he is qding incorrectly then he is probably going to delete incorrectly. As for reverts and warns, he has made a number of those incorrectly as well, which I am sure he will admit. I believe there are some conversations currently on his talk page about just that. I feel he already scares off editors with his impulsiveness, making him an admin on top of that makes it even more likely that a user will be scared off if they see the admins acting impulsively and acting like they WP:OWN the wiki like he tends to do. -DJSasso (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has about 600 deleted edits, >80% of them are QDs, so about 500 QDs. EhJJ^TALK 10:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you cite a couple (one or two) of these declined QDs. Also, perhaps an example of the ownership? With regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are four recently declined QDs: [1] [2] [3] [4]. Not surprisingly, three of them are QD A4's, which many non-admins and admins get wrong frequently. These weren't blatantly wrong, but would be best to take to RfD in the eyes of the admins who denied them, it appears. EhJJ^TALK 10:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were more actually. . . Pmlineditor ∞ 10:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many more, by NVS asked for "one or two". Given he's tagged hundreds of articles, a few bad ones isn't surprising, those were from the last few days... not sure how many more there are if you go back further. EhJJ^TALK 19:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership is everytime he jumps on a new article seconds after its created. He does it many times a day. I won't bother to link to that....as for denying qds. I will have to look through all of his edits to find them. It will take time. -DJSasso (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's "ownership", but it sure is annoying. I had a multi-edit-conflict trying to talk with TRM about my bot, since he kept adding comments quicker than I could fix the edit conflict. But, that's only happened to me once. However, edit conflicts by new editors or someone who is actively doing massive changes to an article can be very annoying and almost bitey/uncivil. EhJJ^TALK 10:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I consider it ownership is that if a brand new user who has never created an article before comes along and creates what they think is this great article and then someone rips it appart within a minute of it being created it comes off that the the user doing the "fixing" is saying that this article isn't good enough for my wiki. This is of course just my opinion, but I think if there was a much longer period before he fixed some of these very very minor things then new editors would be less scared off. How does this apply to adminship, I worry that he will just delete an article that isn't up to snuff yet before an editor has a chance to do so. -DJSasso (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the same way. Griffinofwales too often complains on IRC that a QD has been tagged for 2 hours; implying that we as admins must delete them immediately. There is no reason most pages need to be deleted immediately. QD was created to allow for relatively quick and easy deletion of pages that would obviously be deleted through RfD (a process that would otherwise take 7 days). I am a little worried he would be too quick to delete good pages in progress. EhJJ^TALK 19:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much that it has been QD'd for 2 hours, my issue is that we have admins on and it has been in C:QD for two hours. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

QD just means it will be deleted faster than 7 days, it doesn't imply immediate deletion. For this reason I only check C:QD every once in awhile each day. I am certainly not always checking it. I would be surprised if I check more than twice a day. -DJSasso (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I worry that he will just delete an article that isn't up to snuff yet before an editor has a chance to do so. No, I promise you that. As for the QD, 2 of the 4 articles are going to get deleted anyways, One, I withdrew myself, and the other one was legitimate (although there are still no sources for that one). As for EhJJ's cmt, how is edit conflicting on talk bad? I no longer pounce on an article (because Djsasso asked me to stop), unless it is at risk of deletion because of lack of content etc.--Griffinofwales2 (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"how is edit conflicting on talk bad?" It's annoying. If someone is talking to me and I'm trying to reply, having you make two comments means I need to constantly re-write (i.e. copy-paste) my reply. You've made a lot of good edits, but you don't need to fix/comment on every change! EhJJ^TALK 19:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you. That is annoying. Sorry about that! Griffinofwales (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I'm going to put some comments here for now. While I'd classify myself as neutral at the moment (leaning a little bit) I'm not going to commit myself for a day or two as I want to be able to look over everything and I'm still digging through comments, past discussions and edits to see for myself. That being said I WILL commit myself as an oppose or support and even if for some reason this request is closed before then I will still make my decision and reasoning known to anyone who asks (and will specifically offer it to Griffin). The only real thing to think about in my mind when your deciding who is going to be an admin (or any other roll be it rollbacker,oversight and so on) is whether giving them the tools will be a new benefit for the community. Whether there are to many admins isn't really that important to me except in how it effects the need (and therefore the benefit). While there are quite a few admins here I'm not sure I would say there are TO many. Contrary to what some may say there are definitely persuasive arguments both for and against Griffin and they all need to be looked at.

I appreciate EhJJ's comments because it helps alleviate some of my counting though I'll probably still do some of it. 500qd's and 1000 revret and warns is extensive there is no doubt. Those alone translate to probably 6-700 admin actions that he could have done, deletes instead of tags, blocks after he's warned enough and probably less reverts and deletions over all because he wouldn't have to hold back a vandal until an admin was available. While obviously those admin actions were eventually done by someone else it's an obvious place where he could have used the mop and bucket to clean, probably faster and quicker. Were all those qd's and warns legitimate? I have no reason to believe otherwise but definitely something important to know.

On the other side there are legitimate arguments against. I think that in general we've gotten along just fine. I'd be lying if I said I never had any issues with something he did or say but i'm sure even in the short time I've been here basically everyone has disagreed with me and probably found me annoying. The impulsive and beaucratic arguments are important. I'm going to be honest with you Griffin when I say that I would be somewhat worried that would be a problem mostly because I've seen you be a "stickler" to the rules and to be honest I don't think you really want an admin like that in the grand scheme of things given that one of the biggest things (in my mind) isn't following policy it's working WITH policy. Policy is in general a guideline usually based on what has happened in the past, if you blindly follow it it becomes useless because it never evolves. The biggest way that policies evolve? People working outside of them. I hate to bring this point up but sadly I sort of feel I have to at least think about it despite my feelings about it (see below note). Drama, overall, is bad. Unfortunately you cause some pretty harsh feeling in some people on the wiki. While some of the reasoning behind the feelings is legit there is a harshness that boils over into ridiculousness. Sadly though there is no doubt in my mind that more drama will arise if you are an admin, I don't want to vote know just to avoid drama but I do feel like I have to think about it.Jamesofur (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I'm putting this separate because it really has nothing to do with the request overall. I almost put it on WP:AN instead (maybe I still will). I'm highly disappointed that some of the people voting against have decided that it's not worth there time to actually state any real reasons (despite the fact that I've heard them explain reasons well in the past). To me this means that not only don't you have respect for him but for the process as a whole and to be honest in my mind your "votes" are totally meaningless and should be indented and not even counted in the end. No I wouldn't actually do that to the votes themselves but I know if I was a closing Crat I wouldn't really be counting them when I looked for a consensus. I know there have been problems and I understand and in many cases agree with alot of the concerns others feel. However, the anger and incivility that arises from some when ever anything regarding Griffin comes up is uncalled for and hurts the project far more then anything he has or could ever do. Jamesofur (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

neutral - I don't know wether to supprot or not, because you have made a few mistakes but you have also made some good mainspace edits. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 05:18, 7 October 2009 (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.