Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ChrisGriswold

• See ChrisGriswold's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

Support

1. Support as nominator. --
   talk • contribs) 19:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. Support as co-nom. Hiding Talk 19:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support, an excellent co-nom in Man in Black. I know how difficult it is to refactor comics blow-by-blow "summaries" into readable prose, and am impressed with your cool head as well. --
   tjstrf 19:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. Support, per AMIB's co-nom. ¬_¬ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support: I tend to think Chris dials back the summaries too far, but his commitment, courtesy, and dedication are undeniable. I am confident that Chris would be a solid admin. TheronJ 20:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Captain Planet Support. Although there hasn't been much XfD activity in the last two months, you are still a great user who has contributed a helluva lot to article and Wikipedia discussions. This user is a phenomenal encyclopedia-builder, as well. Keep up the good work, buddy. Nishkid64 20:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support per AMIB -- I think Chris' devotion to high encyclopedic standards, and his ability to communicate clearly and patiently demonstrate that he would make a fair arbitrator when dealing with disputes.
   ~CS 20:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
8. Support - There's nothing much left to say about Chris. Great nomination by Malber, excellent choice. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 20:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support why not, looks good. --Alex (Talk) 20:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support looks good to me.-- danntm ^T _C 21:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. strong support Chris has shown to me he is willing to work through disputes no matter how hard that may be whilst remaining civil and nuteral,and that he understands and properly applies process
    Benon 21:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
12. Edit-conflict Support Looks like a good editor and the answer to question 1 shows a willingness to fight vandals too. I have noticed this also in the user contributions but I would like to see more on an ongoing basis. (aeropagitica) 21:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support Seems like a good editor, that would be good using the tools. Hello32020 21:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support per nom. Rama's arrow 22:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support It's rare that I see an RfA candidate whom I already thought was an admin, but I think this is one of those cases. -- Kicking222 22:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. I would have liked to see a few more articlespace contributions in the form of writing articles, to come closer to fullfilling my guidelines (that I never follow), but I won't oppose because of that as the user is way to suited to be denied the rights. Support. – Elisson • T • C • 22:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support per nom. Michael 22:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 01:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. 'Support, looking good. --
    T | C) 01:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
20. Support no qualms about it. —
    wreak havoc-damage report 02:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
21. Support No problems here. A fine editor. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support per Siva1979. He appears to be more than qualified. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 03:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Easy Support—If we can't trust ChrisGriswold with block/unblock/delete/undelete, then we'd probably better give up on Wikipedia. Do good things well - Williamborg (Bill) 04:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support and strongly so. There is much more to being an administrator than just vandal fighting, and I believe Griswold possesses the right attitude and can be trusted with the tools. Yamaguchi先生 06:59, 10 October 2006
25. Merovingian ※ Talk 09:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support. I think that this user has the right mentality for an admin. Sure, he hasn't heavily participated in all of the deletion processes, but I think that he's familiar enough with them to be conversant. As well, he's helped with a notability guideline, which would imply interaction with other users, and that's the most important trait. — TKD::Talk 09:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support. I think hell be a good admin especially in the wikicomics project. I strongly trust his capability Bloodpack 12:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support. The "cool head" of the comics project, one of these persons who genuinely try to understand and help while still keeping the encyclopedia first (maintaining standards, checking guidelines, ...). The chance of abuse of the admin tools seems quasi nihil.
    Fram 12:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
29. Support i give my full support, A credit to wikipedia, its obviuos he will use his admin tools well.--Fabio 14:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support Even-handed and open-minded with a good eye for policy and guidance in discussion. Aside from that, I don't think he sleeps, making him like a one-man neighborhood watch. --Newt_ΨΦ 15:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support.
    Aaron 15:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
32. Support for a solid user. Themindset 16:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support  Doctor Bruno  16:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support. Looks like a fine editor. No concerns. Nephron  T|C 19:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. Strong support, based on this editor's history of conscientious efforts to improve the quality of so many articles, the calm way he handles conflicts which arise, and his knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines coupled with dedication to following them. On the rare occasions when I have not agreed with an edit of his, I have always been impressed by how well he expresses his position and with his great success in finding compromises that help us all to avoid edit wars. Off hand, I can think of no one else whom I would endorse more strongly. Doczilla 20:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support As a member of
    the Comics Wikiproject, I have seen him in many situations. I feel that he would be a good sysop.--Toffile 23:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
37. Support This editor has a good feel not only for valuable content but additionally how to interact with a variety of personalities here. Any concerns voiced for him are minute compared to the contributes he has and continues to make. NetK 23:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support A well-rounded user with ample experience; the mop will be safe (and busy, it seems) with them. - Tewfik^Talk 02:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support His constant excellence and fair-mindedness as an editor is something we should all strive for. - Lex 08:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support No doubt at all that Chris would make a fine admin. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 13:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
41. Weak Support Brian Boru is awesome 14:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. Strong Support — His calm, articulate and polite responses to even the most uncivil provocateur have impressed me as admin material for some time now. He knows Wikipedia policies and guidelines, he has common sense, and I've only seen him get better at Wiki as time has gone on. -- Tenebrae 15:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. Strong Support - no question about that. Good editor, great editcount, experience. NCurse _work 16:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support I've seen Chris' edits on the X-Men: The Last Stand article; very cool and level-headed, even when dealing with the same issue over and over and over... I have no doubt that he'll use the admin powers in a very fair manner, doing even more to improve the encyclopedia. EVula 18:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support. Looks like he would be a good admin. NauticaShades 19:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support per reasons listed above. User has exhibited level-headedness, initiative, leadership skills, and consistent awesomeness. WesleyDodds 21:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support - per nom --T-rex 04:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support. Don't see any serious issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support - we need more hands at
    JesseW, the juggling janitor
    01:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
50. Support No doubt.
    Scobell302 02:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
51. Support From my interactions from Chris and what I've seen, I believe he'd be an awesome choice for being a Wikipedia administrator. As others have said above, he keeps his cool, he knows his stuff, and he would handle such responsibilities appropriately. -- Ned Scott 05:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support Per nom. Charlie MacKenzie 09:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support. This user is a great example of someone who can be trusted with the admin tools. They are very focused on the process of making articles better and will use the tools appropriately. Adminship isn't a big deal. Plus we need more admins from Pennsylvania. -- RM 13:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support.--DrBat 02:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
55. Unnecessary Support I know this is piling on, but I just wanted to voice my positive opinion of the candidate. As the community has mentioned, he's certainly to be trusted with the tools, given his experience and dedication to volunteering here hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 16:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support per nom --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 18:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support. Of course. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 18:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
58. You mean he isn't one already? Damn. Thought he was. 1ne 06:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
59. Weak support Changed from neutral to weak support per good handling of this awkward conflict.--Húsönd 19:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support great editor who definitely deserves the admin tools.
    es2221 19:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
61. Death of Superman Support real good editor, fake death. --InShaneee 22:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
62. Weak Support I was previously neutral but have decided to support Chris' AfD. Good luck. --
    Talk to Me) ^{(sandbox) (E-Count)}
    16:41 16 Oct 2006 (UTC)