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

Griffinofwales (talk · contribs)

Closed: –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all! Today I'm here to present to you Griffinofwales (talk · contribs) for adminship on simple. He's been on simple for many months and has done different work around here. When he started to edit simple, he had some problems and conflicts with other users. His last (and also first) RfA failed because most users of our community didn't felt comfortable with him being an admin. I think that the things since October have changed. He's marked hundreds of pages for deletion and also reverted vandals and warned them. He's also created several articles and helped to expand others. When his last RfA was, I felt that he's not ready for the tools. Now, three months later, I think he can do a good job. I'm sure he wouldn't abuse the tools and would be a good addition to the current team. We all would benefit from having him with the mop. Thank you for your time. Good luck! -Barras ^talk 15:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: I accept this nomination. I hope I have fixed all the issues that came up in the last RFA. -Griffinofwales (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. -Barras ^talk 15:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. His improvement since his last RfA is sufficiently impressive and I now find that Griffin would be an asset to the admin team. Best of luck. ···Lauryn 15:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support - Much improvement since you've started! Yottie ^=talk= 15:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Strong support: He dah man Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Trails blazed)} 15:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support I refrained from commenting at all last time (I think....) because I wasn't sure, but didn't want to oppose. This time I can be sure that Griffin will do fine with the tools. Best of luck.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 16:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Good choice for replacing Kennedy. —§ stay (sic)! 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Should be noted that there's not exactly such thing as "replacing" editors per se...all RFAs and RFdAs are independent of each other Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 01:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Indeed! Kennedy is irreplaceable, and his demotion was a complete tragedy. Let's just move on from it, k. fr33kman 03:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Thats harsh, man. Harsh. Kennedy (talk • changes). 20:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   It's true Kennedy, you're irreplaceable! Yottie ^=talk= 17:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   He's referring to Snake's comment, which was completely uncalled for and inappropriate, and probably borderline PA actually. I suggest that snake retracts said comment and apologises to Kennedy. Goblin 18:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

8. Support I'm disappointed that you decided to let Barras nominate you Griffin! I wanted to nominate you several weeks ago, but you didn't want me to :(. Definitely right for the job. Razorflame 01:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry, tried to reach you for a co-nom, but couldn't. Griffinofwales (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

9. As per last time, I think Griffin would make a good admin. fr33kman 03:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. Has improved a great deal. Will be a good addition to the team. Good content work apart from anti vandalism etc. :) Pmlineditor ∞ 07:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. --vector ^_^ (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. SupportI think Griff2 would make an excellent admin! And we do need more admins because currently, there are no admins online right now. A high support! I-on talk sign! 14:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. No reason to oppose, does a fine job. Kennedy (talk • changes). 20:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support No issues with this user in quite some time. Also per whynot. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk|Changes)} 05:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. Strong Support A friendly, clueful, intelligent, dedicated and smart editor. --PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 15:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
16. --cremepuff222 (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support. What they said. --<font=Comic Sans MS>S3CR3T ^{Happy holidays!} 18:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18. Weak support kinda not into this support but I can't find a reason not to support, he won't break the wiki.--  † CR₉₀  03:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
19. Strong support: He's quite nice, and I don't see anything wrong about giving him a strong support. After all, he helped my sister Classical Esther with a few stuff and after reading over his talk pages, he seems like a nice, kind, smart person, ready for adminship. :) Belinda Lydia Tilney (talk) 06:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support - seems to have fixed up issues brought up in the last rfa. Nifky^{^} 06:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support. Quick, clever, helpful, and, I believe, trustworthy. Good luck! >.^Classical Esther 02:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Sorry, not now. I'm just not yet convinced that you're ready for the tools and are completely past your old ways. Not a no, but certainly not now. Will add more later before anyone pounces. Goblin 16:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]

   Hey, buddy, ... this is certainly not a "pounce"; but ... if you've got more to say then you should really just say it. Not only does it help the candidate out, but it helps out the whole community in bringing to their attention that which they may have missed. :) fr33kman 08:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Or, perhaps I haven't got the time to sit down and write out my full oppose yet? I'm well aware of how useful Oppose votes can be, but I have been extremely busy with 3 pieces of coursework and revision for (previously unannounced :|) mock unit modules at school. This is the exact sort of comment that I was asking not to get... Goblin 18:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]

   You are kind of running out of time. Fr33k was only trying to help. ATM your oppose isn't that strong. Don't be so bitey.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 19:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Weak oppose. Due to the concerns I've seen that are raised by a few users in his previous RfA, I wouldn't support him yet. O.320939697.O 02:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I thought I had fixed those issues. Could you be specific with which issues you have problems with? Griffinofwales (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Although I have yet to view details about certain issues, upon viewing the number of people opposing your previous RfA and their explanations, and the previous RfA being not very long ago, in my opinion, it would be better if there is a slightly longer time span between when the issues are fixed and the renomination. Regards, O.320939697.O 20:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]