Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GorillaWarfare

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

Boy, this RfA is right on the edge. This is my first close call I've made since becoming a crat, so I feel that a rationale would help to head off complaints at the pass. There's a large amount of both support and opposition alike, from all sorts of editors from all areas of the wiki. Both sections have valid rationales for their decisions, and thus, this is a hard closure. After analyzing the rationales for a while, and deciding what the consensus leans to, I've decided that the community is generally in support of GorillaWarfare being an administrator. Multiple points in the opposition were raised that are either frivolous, unconvincing, or both, and many have been challenged. Additionally, there were a large amount of editors in the support party that stated that the opposes were unconvincing. Thus, they hold less weight, as there is a lack of consensus surrounding the ideas behind them.

The most popular opposition point was her high ratio of "automated" edits. Her automatic edit count may be fairly large, but when you consider that she is an editor who performs mainly anti-vandal work, it is not at all unreasonable for a large number of edits to be automatic. I would also like to recommend editors to stop using the word "automated", as it implies that the edits are made without thought, conscience, or anything. In reality, there is quite a bit of thought that goes into vandalism reverting much of the time.

Related to the automated edits was her article contributions (or rather, a lack thereof) in this RfA. However, it has been pointed out that she does have some content creation experience, such as Nigel Levings and Richard Riddell. To quote WJBScribe, "there remains no consensus as to whether a proven record of article-writing ability should be a prerequisite for a contributor to Wikipedia to become an administrator."

Yet another opposition point raised was her comment on the EHealth AfD. Granted, her edit to the EHealth AfD may not have been the best thing she could have said. However, when you consider that the diff was the only one of its kind that was brought up, the strength of the argument is, well, diminished. Everyone has those moments of facepalm, but if there's only 1 such instance here, it's not as big a deal as it may seem. I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that opposing because of a single comment that arguably could have been worded better is unhealthy for the RfA environment, the contributors, and Wikipedia as a whole.

A small point that I observe that can grant more weight to the support side is that many of the opposers were, and I quote from their bolded text, "weak". They were generally in regret and/or generally supporting of her adminship, if not for a few weak points raised. To quote a few, "Oppose – very regretfully", "I hate to oppose". These impart a general wish to do well, if not for a few minor points.

In conclusion, the amount of unconvincing opposes leans consensus to the support side, and thus, I have closed this RfA as successful. (X! · talk)  · @930  ·  21:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare

Final (87/36/8); ended 21:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC) - (X! · talk)  · @930  ·  21:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs) – I am nominating myself for adminship. I've been a member of Wikipedia for four years and thirteen days, as of today. I used to edit under the username theunicyclegirl, but I lost the password to that account about a year after creating it and had no way of recovering it. I've been using this account since July 28, 2007, and have a verified email account as well as a committed identity to avoid that happening again. However, I should mention that although I have been an editor for a long time, I did not edit incredibly regularly. Most of my edits have been in the past 10 months or so. I tend to be a slightly sporadic editor, mostly because of real life. However, I have almost 6,100 edits on this account, and over 2,200 on theunicyclegirl. I believe I'm ready to have access to the admin tools on Wikipedia. I already have rollback and reviewer rights, and I don't believe I've had any complaints regarding either of those. There are several ways that the admin tools will augment my editing on Wikipedia, which I will detail more completely in the questions below. I do a large amount of vandal patrol (through Huggle, Twinkle, and manually) and I end up reporting vandals to AIV relatively frequently. I also do new page patrol, tagging pages for speedy deletion or cleanup, and marking them as patrolled to help others see what's been patrolled. Lately, I've been spending a lot of time in AfD, where I believe I've been making good contributions. As for actual content editing, I've written several articles. I generally do more gnomish things, however, such as adding infoboxes and reformatting or adding references. As for my editing practices, I'm always civil (and will warn those who are not) and I always use an edit summary.

I would like to point out a blemish or two in my editing history. I made the mistake of leaving my account logged on once, and my brother made this edit to Large Hadron Collider. I was warned for it, and I explained the problem as soon as I noticed it on the warner's page here. However, I trust a blemish like that from October 2008 won't be too much of an issue. Additionally, I've had some CSD tags rejected. The most recent was here on Serwan Baban, because I didn't realize that A7 didn't apply to professors. I have since familiarized myself more thoroughly with the criteria. The editor who declined the SD suggested I submit it to AfD, which I did, but that too was decided as a keep because he is a vice-chancellor of a university. I was unaware of what that position entailed, and I realize I should have researched more before nominating for deletion. However, I hope that my being forthcoming regarding that here will help everyone reviewing this request to realize that I learned a good lesson from the incident and have used it as a reminder to be more careful. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 19:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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: Because much of my current editing revolves around vandalism patrol, I plan to continue patrolling and use my tools to block those who have been sufficiently warned. Additionally, I'll now be able to go through AIV to review the reports there. I will also review speedy deletion tags and delete the article (and salt the page if necessary) or deny the speedy deletion request. I also plan to close discussions at AfD, deciding what the best plan of action is based on the discussion. As for other aspects of adminship, I'm constantly exploring Wikipedia and helping out in new places that interest me. The only tools that I'm unlikely to use are those that allow editing of CSS/Javascript/etc. I'm not very familiar with that type of thing, so I will keep my hands out of there.

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

A: I would say all of my contributions are helpful to Wikipedia. However, I suppose that my vandal patrol has helped quite a bit. I am quick and quite accurate at reverting and warning vandals. If I make a mistake with my reverts/warnings, I always undo the edits nearly immediately. Additionally, I feel that the articles I have created and/or worked on intensively are also good contributions. I've created the articles Richard Riddell and Nigel Levings (both stage lighting designers) and have made extensive edits to pages such as Lighting instrument and Robert E. Grady. I did heavy-duty cleanup on both of the latter articles. Additionally, my contributions in discussions such as AfD are helpful in deciding whether or not to delete pages. I have also been active in helping out other Wikipedians. I adopted Cremepuff222 quite a while back and helped him improve his editing significantly. Unfortunately, he has since been blocked for sockpuppetry, although that was significantly after the adoption ended, and he certainly did not start using sockpuppets by any suggestion of mine. I also welcome newcomers that I see editing pages and give them suggestions if need be. I always urge them to ask me any questions on my talk page, and when they do so I give detailed responses to try to help as much as possible.

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 tend not to get into conflicts too much, as I'm quite civil in my wording. However, there have been several incidents. I recall getting into an edit war a long while ago and eventually having to go to the Admin Noticeboard on edit warring. However, I have been unable to find record of it, as it was a while ago. More recently there was a problem with a user repeatedly removing another user's comment on a talk page. I kept reverting, eventually past 3 reverts. I believe that there wouldn't be a problem, as it was vandalism, but as soon as I realized I had passed three reverts, I immediately stopped reverting. You can see the end conversation here. The reverts occur in this interval. My subsequent handling of the issue is found here. An additional conflict that I became involved in was here, where I stepped in with a Wikiquette alert. It got slightly heated, although less of the anger was directed towards me.

Additional optional question from Malleus Fatuorum

4. The majority of your edits are to user talk pages (46.48%). How do you explain that?

A: Well, considering the majority of the editing I do on Wikipedia is vandalism patrol, I would imagine it's because of that. I'm diligent about warning vandals when I revert (or Huggle does it for me) so every time I revert a page, it adds a warning to the user's talk page. I presume that the rest of the edits to user talk pages are me helping other users, discussing issues, etc. I'm surprised that it comes out to nearly half of my edits though!

So would it be fair to say then that the overwhelming majority of your 2,500 or so article edits are straightforward vandalism reversion? That's what the figures seem to be suggesting. Malleus Fatuorum 21:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how to answer this question. Yes, I would say that a very good number of them are vandalism reversion. However, I don't know if it would be the overwhelming majority. I'm not sure where I would be able to find that number, short of counting my edits manually, so I really can't answer this quantitatively. I guess the addition I should make is that I don't know what percentage of my talk page edits are warnings or vandalism-related warnings, either. Sorry this is vague, I hope it helps! — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 21:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from White Shadows

5. Have you written any Good Articles, Featured Articles, DYKs or Featured Lists or been a major part in promoting any of these types of articles?

A: No, I have not. As I said above in my introduction, I generally do more gnomish things when it comes to editing articles: adding infoboxes, citations, cleanup, etc. I generally try to support the entire Wikipedia as a whole. Rather than spending a lot of time on an individual article to make it of good article or featured article status, I would generally prefer spend less time on more articles. As for DYKs or FLIs, I have not been involved in those either. They are simply not the type of editing that I prefer to do on Wikipedia.

6. Why did you hardly make any edits for over two years after you registered with this account?

A: I am in school, and when things get busy, I have less free time for Wikipedia, as I am sure is true for everyone. For those two years, I was very busy with academics and with other things outside of school. I did not have much time to spend on a computer, so when I did, it was usually not spent editing Wikipedia. However, I have a bit more free time now, and as you can see I have returned wholeheartedly to editing.

7. This is a rather simple question: Why should I support someone who only has just above 6,000 edits and who only reverts vandalism? There are plenty of vandal fighters like J. delanoy, Tide Rolls, and The Thing That Should Not Be (two of which are admins) so "what do you bring to the table"?

A: Well I don't see why you shouldn't support those three either. I was not of the impression that there were a limited number of administrator positions (for lack of a better descriptor) available. I don't see why it would be possible or negative to have too many vandal fighter administrators. However, I can answer the question about what I bring to the table. I don't know those three editors terribly well (although I have run into Tide Rolls many times while vandal patrolling), so the following qualities are not in comparison to them. I am clearheaded about dealing with vandalism. Even when the editor is being defamatory and uncivil towards me or another editor, I stay calm and civil. I pay very good attention to details: always using an edit summary, always warning vandals, checking for previous warnings, etc. I'm quite familiar with policies and guidelines, which is really helpful in backing up reasoning for why I do things (making reverts, etc.) as well as giving me advice on which decision to make in a difficult situation. I'm also becoming more involved with AfDs, which I really enjoy. If I get access to administrator tools, I will use them to help make deletion decisions there. Additionally, I can be just another helping hand to deal with speedy deletion tags, requests for unblock, the deletion backlog, requests for permission, etc.

Additional optional questions from wiooiw

8. Under what circumstances, if any, would you block a user without any warnings?

A: There are some circumstances in which I would block a user without warning. This is basically outlined in different policies and guidelines, but unapproved bots, spam accounts, public accounts, vandalism-only accounts, open proxies, sockpuppets, users making extreme personal attacks or extreme vandalism, and accounts with usernames that go against the username policy can be blocked without warnings. Accounts that violate the child protection policy should be blocked and reported to the Arbitration Committee, as should some personal attacks. To clarify, an account that is posting spam or vandalism should not be blocked on sight, but a persistent spam- or vandalism-only account can be. This is all outlined on WP:Blocking policy, I believe.

9. Would you ever block a user just for the hell of it?

A: Certainly not. Every block should have a justifiable reason behind it. I would personally hate if an administrator blocked me "just for the hell of it", so I would never do something like that myself.

Additional optional question from Connormah

10. How will you ensure that your brother won't get a hold of your account again and do something like this (or possibly something worse with admin tools, should this succeed)?

A: Well for one, my brother is about to move out of my house and go on to bigger and better things. Secondly, I have my own computer now that he doesn't have access to. I also am very careful to log out of my account, and my password is secure. I only use the password for Wikipedia, and nothing else.

Additional optional question from StephenBuxton

11. Please can you do the CSD exercised on this page User:StephenBuxton/CSD Exercises?. You can either post your answers here, or if you think you will take up too much space, create a userfied page and place the link here. Thank you.

A: I answered the questions here: User:GorillaWarfare/CSD Answers so as to save space on this page.

Your answers are generally sound, but can I please clarify something? for your answer for User:StephenBuxton/CSD Exercises/Malcom Hardee, you say that it is an attack page, but he is a notable person and so you would create it. If you have found out he exists, are you certain it was an attack page? Stephen! ^Coming... 15:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's a clever CSD exercise! I've changed my response accordingly. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 16:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Why, thank you... flattery will get you support! Rewriting is definitely positive but here a simple redirect would be sufficient, as the title of the article is a typo. Stephen! ^Coming... 16:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I assumed we were assuming the current article doesn't exist. And thanks for pointing out the typo! I didn't catch that. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 16:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from OlEnglish

12. As a follow-up to question #6, are you still in school? Are you done now or at some point in the future will you again be too busy for Wikipedia?

A: I am still in school, yes. However, other things have changed to allow me to have more free time for editing. As you can see from my editing history, my editing has been relatively strong since late October of last year. Much of the time between then and now was during the school year, but I still found time to edit. I plan to continue to do so through the rest of my schooling as well.

Additional optional question from Paul Erik

13. A follow-up to question #11: For a couple of the CSD exercises, you've written something like "I would delete the page, saying he's a non-notable person." If that's the case, what is your understanding of why WP:NOTCSD #5 states that "notability" is a non-criterion? To put it another way, how important do you believe the distinction is between "non-notable" and "no indication of significance"?

A: Well, I wouldn't say that it's saying it's a non-criterion. I see that as saying that if the article gives an indication of significance, it no longer qualifies for speedy deletion. For example, the Athur the Great article made no assertions to significance. Wizzy Wig was a little fuzzier, but I'd say still didn't. Basically the distinction I get from that is that if something is non-notable, it's a more or less permanent deal. Articles making indications of significance are different. It's more temporary. Something can be notable, but have no indication of significance in the article. For example, I'll use the Malcom Hardee article. That article has no indication of significance. However, Malcolm Hardee is notable, and assertions of significance could easily be found. So basically, what I think that non-criterion is saying is that if an article seems non-notable, but makes claims that it is, it can't be speedily deleted. I feel like it's a pretty big distinction -- one is fixable, one is not.

Question from Beetstra

14. What are the Local spam blacklist and the Meta spam blacklist, what are they for, and which are the general policies and guidelines that they relate to. How should this functionality be used (also in conjunction with the MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist and/or XLinkBot)? What do you do when your edit is blocked by a blacklist entry?

A. The two pages are lists of web addresses that have been blacklisted. If you try to post a link from the list on a Wikipedia page, it will come up with a warning about how the page is on the spam blacklist and won't post the link to the page. They are to block widespread spamming of these links, as they've been used frequently in the past, generally by spambots. The local blacklist is just for the English Wikipedia, while the meta blacklist is global. They relate to the guidelines at WP:SPAM, particularly under Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming with bots. If a link is being spammed en masse, and the problem can't be solved by any of the suggestions in m:Spam_blacklist/About (such as protecting the page, blocking one or several users, etc.), the blacklists should be used (requests can be submitted at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist or, if the spamming is global, m:Talk:Spam blacklist). The whitelist is used when a url that is included in the blacklist is needed for a reference. If you can prove that the page/site that you want whitelisted would be a good addition to the article (i.e. it's a verifiable source, etc.) it can be placed on the whitelist (requested at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist). The XLinkBot is used for links that can be useful on Wikipedia, but are often used for spam. It allows established users to add links from the sites on its RevertList, but if an IP editor or a new editor tries to add or change a link to one that is on the list, it will be reverted. It's basically a halfway point between having the URL unprotected and having it blacklisted. If you run into a problem where your edit is blocked and think that the link that you're adding should be allowed, you can request that the specific one is whitelisted. However, it's always a really good idea to triple-check that it's a good source because generally there's a good reason for sites to be blacklisted. Also, sometimes similar content can be found at other, better sites. However, if you think it must be whitelisted, you can submit a request at the link I posted earlier, following the instructions given. If you think that the entire site that is being blocked does not belong on the blacklist, requests for de-blacklisting can be made at the talk pages of each blacklist (links posted earlier when I was talking about adding to the blacklist). I hope this answer is thorough enough -- feel free to ask me to clarify anything if needed!

Thank you for your answer (I'm sorry, I just came up with this question in relation to a meta discussion, it did not evolve completely yet). You basically indeed get the point, though I was hoping that you would answer also relating to the core policies upon which WP:SPAM is based. Be ware, the problem not only relates to spambots. Spamming involves real editors, who are here solely for one reason. They sometimes indeed use spambots, but that is certainly not their only method.

14.2 What would you look at if you were to handle a request to blacklist a site? And what would you look at when you were (requested to handle a request) to whitelist a specific link on a blacklisted domain (and when would you de-blacklist the whole domain)? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

A. To handle a request for blacklisting, I would check to see if it fit the requirements for blacklisting, listed at Wikipedia:Spam-blacklisting. The article needs to be widely spammed by several users, even after blocking and warning. I would have to assess whether or not the article had a valid use to Wikipedia, and also whether or not referring to XLinkBot would be more appropriate. I would check for a WP:WikiProject Spam report, to see if the problem was already being dealt with. I would try to solve the problem by page protection and blocking of a user/open proxy. If the requirements were met and the problem was not solved by alternative methods, I would remove all existing links to the article and probably contact an admin who was more familiar with Regex than I to assist me there. As I stated earlier in the project, I'm not very familiar with editing of code, and this includes Regex. I would then log the addition. To whitelist a URL, I would check to see if the page they wanted to use was legitimate. It would have to be a verifiable source that would be an improvement to the article. If the same information could be found elsewhere, I'd suggest that. However, if the request was legitimate, I would go through with it. Again, I'd probably need help from an admin more familiar with the syntax than I. To de-blacklist an entire domain, I'd have to do some serious checking. I'd see why it was listed for blacklisting in the first place, and check to see that it no longer fit that criteria. It would have to be a reliable source. Also, even if it was a reliable source, I'd have to be confident that it would not be heavily spammed again. For example, unblacklisting an entire video hosting website would probably be less than wise. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 15:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Edit stats posted to talk. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I picked three articles from this list of the articles the candidate has significantly edited under this user name. Two of them appear to have 0 edits by this user. Miniature bull terrier, York Chocolate cat. (They both have edits under the old user name.) I assume I have to be missing something. Am I? Townlake (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry! I must have put those in the wrong location -- those edits were all from around the time when I switched accounts, so I probably just forgot. Thanks for catching that! Porcelaine is also the same way. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 01:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries, figured it was an innocent goof. Thanks for the quick reply. Townlake (talk) 01:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note their 2000+ edits under former account User:Theunicyclegirl as well as their recently filed editor review. Airplaneman ✈ 02:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Regarding question 4: 46.48% is not a majority, though it is a plurality. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Only in colonial English. "In British English, majority and plurality are often used as synonyms". Malleus Fatuorum 13:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually you're totally backwards. I suggest you read plurality more closely. --209.216.175.52 (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I suggest you get a life. Malleus Fatuorum 00:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I suggest you don't aggreviate. ResMar 03:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
          • What does "aggreviate" mean? Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
    • "American English", surely? Britain had more colonies than just the North American colonies. Sincerely, a damn colonial from the Southern hemisphere, TFOWR 22:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
      • What? That made no sense...ResMar 02:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
        • He means that, though Australian English and American English are both "colonial," they're very, very different. —Animum (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Well, I was thinking of Kiwi English as well (and Singapore English, Indian English, etc...), but yes. I've added (italicised) the word I missed out. TFOWR 07:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok. ResMar 02:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Clearly we're getting stupid now in terms of admin requirements. Solid stub with refs. Understands policy, Owns their mistakes. Now, I think there are a few areas that you could develop on, but I'm assuming form the answers to Q1-Q3 you're hardly going to go crazy with the tools. Pedro :  Chat  21:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

   Well perhaps some of us are. Malleus Fatuorum 21:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

   Some of you are assuming the candidate will go crazy with the tools? Or that some people are getting stupid in terms of requirements? Or both? Pedro :  Chat  21:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

   You demonstrate to me how administrators who basically have done nothing but vandalism reversion can have their toolbelt removed if they cock up when they branch out into other areas of "janitorial" activity, such as blocking established editors, and I may join you in your best of all possible worlds. Until then ... Malleus Fatuorum 21:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

   Noted. Pedro :  Chat  21:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

2. Support per Pedro and largely as a protest against any suggestion that a candidate needs to be at all familiar with RFA before becoming an admin. Tactically, it is a good idea. But there is no reason for its relevance to suitability for the tools. Taking this approach risks casting aside good candidates. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

   I should add that I do like the frank and thoughtful answers to the questions. I agree with WSC and Doc Quintana's reasons for not supporting the candidature, but I think there is a lot of potential here and I hope if this fails that GW will come back in a few months.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

   I'd second that last sentence. There are a lot of strong rationales for not promoting this candidate, and believe that this is too soon. But if the candidate can prove that they've learnt from their mistakes over a period of a few months, they would in all probability pass the next RfA with ease. --WFC-- 16:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

3. Support on the basis of clear, thoughtful, and intelligent answers to the questions. For some candidates I'd want to see more varied edits, but GorillaWarfare already strikes me as someone who knows what it's about, and I'm happy with what I see. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Support per Pedro and question 9 as this user obviously will not go crazy with the tools. wiooiw (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Support Why do most of oppose rationales at RfA say things like "Not enough content edits." and "Too many automated edits.". In fact, some successful RfAs big part of the nom was the fact they wrote an anti-vandal bot. Most of being an sysop is to prevent vandalism, so why would they need major experience in content creation? Other RfAs have been denied on the fact that they had only content creation experience. RfA is supposed to see if the community trusts the candidate's judgement, not if they have enough trophies. Sorry for the rant, but good luck. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 00:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
6. Support - fully meets my standards. Bearian (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
7. Support (edit conflict) - seems competent, has clue. Not having voted in any RFAs is a plus in my book - it means you're less involved in the drama side of the project, and more involved in improving the encyclopaedia. I trust this user with the tools. Robofish (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
8. Support. Research into GorillaWarfare's edit history indicates (s)he is a compotent editor and will be a plus to the project as an admin. --PinkBull 01:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
9. Support. Plenty of experience, unlikely to do anything rash, and puts forward a good and - importantly - honest argument. As I've been arguing on the Signpost, the benefit of the doubt needs to be given more around here. Esteffect (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
10. Support - I was going to go neutral and say rack up more edits, but that's not necessary. The contribution number is on the low side (8,386 if you add in the previous account but consider the automation) but the non automated edits are good, and I wouldn't underestimate the quality of vandal patrolling here. I didn't look at every edit, but I saw nothing that worried me looking through both accounts. Shadowjams (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
11. Support I oppose almost all the time lately, and normally the CSD mistakes would keep me out of this column. However, the candidate seems to take constructive criticism on board unusually well, and the communication skills are top-notch. The Talk page correspondence with other editors is particularly encouraging. I believe this user will be a good administrator. Townlake (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
12. Support - has a clue and gave good answers to all questions. Airplaneman ✈ 01:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
13. Support Despite the mistakes, I trust you, and hope that should this fail, you'll be back here in 6 months. Courcelles 02:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
14. Weak Support: Some valid concerns raised below. Take some time to deal with them. We need good admins and hope to see you in six months. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
15. Support I've seen your mistakes from the past, and seen how you improved over the months (and years). Even through you have less edits then some users think you should, and that most of them are automated, I still trust you. After all, the point of having Administrators is that they spend lots (if not the majority or all) of their time to control vandalism with their enhanced tools and help make sure the project runs smoothly. RFA standards for lots of users are way too high right now, and this has led to a reduced number of new admins which has now cut into the number of active admins. I probably have low standards than everyone else, but they are good enough that you can do the job. Techman224^Talk 03:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
16. Support per Pedro. ResMar 03:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
17. Support per Techman224. I like you, and I thought your answers were spot on. I'm not at all bothered by the balance of your edits, and even though you've certainly made mistakes, you've shown a great willingness to learn from them. Here's hoping you get enough support to get you over the hump. AP1787 (talk) 05:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
18. Support - was on the fence until I saw the first three sentences of the candidate's answer to Q7: "Well I don't see why you shouldn't support those three [JD, TR, TTTSNB] either. I was not of the impression that there were a limited number of administrator positions (for lack of a better descriptor) available. I don't see why it would be possible or negative to have too many vandal fighter administrators." Great phrasing, in my opinion. A bit combative, but that can be chalked up to a slightly combative question. It shows the levelheadedness I like in admin candidates. Gorilla, if you ever need assistance, drop me a line.  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
19. Support level headed and sufficient experience. Polargeo (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
20. Support Enough substance in vandal fighting to support IMO, also strongly agree with Pedro. Swarm^Talk 06:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
21. Support - Good communicator, intelligent and considered answers to the questions, good contribution history and demonstrates a willingness to self improve. Satisfies my main RFA criterion.  Begoon^talk 07:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
22. Support - per Pedro. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 08:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
23. Support A net benefit to the project here, very much appreciate the vandal fighting techniques, But article edits seem low, would be a good idea to beef this up in the future for experience. Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
24. Support - While she doesn't have that much content contribution under her belt, she certainly understands what it is all about [1] [2], and that's what matters to me. My criterion is met, answers are good, and mistakes are there to learn from them. refactored - candidate is female --Pgallert (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
25. Support- I see no real grounds for concern with this candidate. Reyk _YO! 10:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
26. Support Will be able to learn on the job. Pichpich (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
27. Support Although your amount of mainspace edits is rather small in comparison to your total amount of edits, you have 2537 mainspace edits, and WP:Admin coaching says For most editors, around 1000 – 1500 mainspace edits (and a reasonable proportion of all edits) would be a typical minimum [for RfA]., so I guess you're fine. You also seems to have a good understanding of the policies and guidelines. —Waterfox (talk) 14:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
28. Support - good knowledge of content creation, shown by candidate's two created articles; good answers to questions, especially Q7. Also, good knowledge of policy around here, such as demonstrated in Talk:Ocean_City,_Maryland#Ocean_City_Surf_Report and User talk:Pankajraj01#Your edits to Garhwali. I note a bit of misapplication of policy, such as WP:PROD; I also note that none of us is perfect. Frank  |  talk  14:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
29. SupportActive in maintaining the quality of the encyclopedia, and accepts positive criticism to improve use of CSD tools. More article creation and contribution to articles would be good in an admin candidate, but seems worthy of the mop and bucket. Edison (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
30. Strong Support Per answers to questions, I think you'd make a great "mop-wielder". To those who opposed on basis of lack of experience, if being on the project and active for almost three years is "inexperienced," then what does constitute enough experience to be an admin? 2 says you, says two 15:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
31. Support - looks trustworthy, not likely to abuse the tools. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
32. Strong support - we need more janitors, not more paper pushers and architects Triona (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
33. Support Per answers to my CSD exercise (and not because of the flattery... honest!). I don't see that it is necessary to be a good editor to be a good administrator (heck... I've hardly ever written anything of substance, even before I got the mop!), but an understanding of the policies is definitely required. Has shown good understanding of policy and follow-up work. Stephen! ^Coming... 16:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
34. support - RFA sucks. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    That's nice, but what does that have to do with the candidate? Doc Quintana (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

35. Support I'm shocked that I am lending my support to such an inexperienced candidate. (Zounds! Only one edit to the Portal namespace? I have 14 times as many.) However, I have been known to be a bit of a nut, so I'll support anyway. AlexiusHoratius 18:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    So you have ... 14 edits to the portal namespace? ;-) Sad, I have 145... just look at the great results of them!  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

36. Support Seems trustworthy. Unconvinced by opposes so far - and I quite like the level-headed attitude taken when responding to criticism. Not a perfect candidate, but we don't seek perfection. --Dweller (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
37. Support since the candidate has good policy knowledge and is trustworthy. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 20:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
38. Support Nothing in the oppose section is concerning enough for me to oppose you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
39. The candidate has made a few mistakes (who hasn't?), but overall seems to have a good head on their shoulders. –xeno^talk 22:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
40. Support Although I understand the objections raised below, I see no reason not to believe that the candidate will use those as a learning opportunity and improve. I also see no reason to believe that GorillaWarfare will abuse the tools -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
41. Support Looks good. Oppose reasons are unconvincing (whether people have voted before in RfAs is utterly irrelevant to whether or not they will make a good admin, I can marginally see the argument about automated edits but the total number of non-automated edits is high enough that this isn't an issue.) JoshuaZ (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
42. Support Seems level-headed, which is possibly the most important character trait in an admin.  –Joshua Scott ^[who?] 22:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
43. Strong Support Don't listen to all these haters!; they just jealous. --A3RO (mailbox) 00:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
44. Support I don't think she nailed all the questions, but I also sense a willingness to quickly rethink a position when errors pointed out. I liked the CSD answers, I liked the q8 answer, and I liked the firm, but not confrontational response to the AfD edit used as an oppose. I confess I didn't know the policy until I looked it up, and yes, she is right. I think WP will, on balance, be a better place with her as a sysop.--SPhilbrickT 00:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
45. Support upstateNYer 01:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
46. Editor looks solid and I find no reason to oppose. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
47.  Support — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 07:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
48. Strong Support Quick draw tagging is a concern, but you responded positively to the criticism and generally seem to be an excellent, diligent contributor. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
49. Support - Sort of going on instinct here. I have a few concerns regarding CSD tagging, but just be careful in the future. I think you've learned very quickly how things work here and I suspect you'll continue to learn quickly. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 12:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
50. Support. Still slightly concerned about you suddenly becoming "too busy" again because of school, especially since adminship brings with it a higher level of activity and responsibility, but I don't feel right opposing over just that. I trust you're not swallowing more than you can chew, and that you have it in you to make Wikipedia a better place. -- œ^™ 14:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
51. Very strong support GorillaWarfare does excellent vandalism patrol work, showing a good deal better understanding of policies than many editors who try to deal with vandalism. Her answers to questions (above) also show a good level of understanding. Many of the objections raised below by opposers do not carry much weight. The comment at the AfD was not entirely unreasonable. Lack of article writing experience is given far too much importance these days in RfAs. The removals of the PROD were more significant, but presumably she knows better now, and not even admins are perfect. The concern about being too busy is totally irrelevant: an admin who has little time to work here does no harm, and may do a little good. I believe she will make a good admin. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
52. Support because I don't see a convincing argument she would misuse admin status if it is given. Perfect, no, but I'd rather not have perfect admins because it means that they will be less afraid to be bold, which always entails some mistakes. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
53. Support. I have millions of automatic edits, best thing for an admin to have. We're not here for content, we're here to clean. Solid grasp of policy, long-standing editor, willing to admit mistakes. We need more people like GW for adminship, and we need more admins. Sod the detractors. Vote YES. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
54. Support. I have some concerns about CSD, but I'm confident you'll learn from the comments here. What swung me from a possible neutral was Nigel Levings: CSD isn't just about deleting stuff, it's about knowing how to rescue a stub, and you've convinced me you have the skills for that, too. I'm dating your experience back to July 2006 (Theunicyclegirl) and considering your edits to various namespaces as Theunicyclegirl, so I'm not seeing quite the "problem" some of the opposers may be. I had to smile at your "blemish": I've got a block more recent than that. TFOWR 17:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
55. Support Maybe some of the usually silly opposes will come around. Jmlk17 17:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
56. Support. GorillaWarfare's long-standing contribution is amazing considering the age/student status she discloses. That she responds positively to even difficult feedback is apparent and her tone towards other editors is encouraging, clear and cooperative. If I wanted guidance or example, GorillaWarfare's exactly the kind of admin I'd like to have around. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
57. Support - as with all of us, mistakes have been made and doubtless will continue to be made. What I'm seeing here is a dedicated and sensible editor who works hard to rectify concerns, and makes many valued contributions - a clear and obvious net positive with admin tools. ~ mazca ^talk 18:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
58. Support, I see someone who's calm, rational, and willing to learn from their mistakes. Not impressed at all by the "wherearetheeditscountitis" opposes, or nitpicking at the fact that-God forbid-the candidate made the occasional mistake, the candidate shows knowledge and willingness to learn through their actions. While it doesn't look like this one's on track to pass, I'll be just as happy to support you next time around. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

    Actually, at the time of me posting, this RFA is at 71% with some commenting strong support and some opposers offering a weak oppose. Noting also the neutral comments, this request is currently very much in the discretionary range for the 'crats. I hope that state continues or improves. Pedro :  Chat  20:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

    A support or oppose is as strong as its rationale, rather than what the !voter decides to write in big bold letters. --WFC-- 22:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

59. Support, I don't see any reason to say that GorillaWarfare will make anything but proper use of the tools. Frankness is a positive aspect; I have no complaints about former shortfalls freely admitted. Just one bit of advice: be careful to remember your password lest you have to register a third account. Nyttend (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
60. Support Support per Pedro. Tired of the "too many automated edits" argument; tired of the "messed up an AfD once" argument. Is he going to fix more than he breaks - yes. King Pickle (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
61. Support - a very good candidate who is willing to learn from her past mistakes. GorillaWarfare certainly is a good choice for becoming an administrator due to her long-standing contributions. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
62. Per Pedro. Keegan (talk) 04:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

    Due to the opposition and the continual environment of RfA/Wikipedia ever since I've joined, I'm inspired by the request to write an essay on the subject in the spirit of MeatballWiki. Keegan (talk) 05:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

63. Support An excellent candidate who seems to have a great track record Ronk01 talk, ^{Editor Review} 06:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
64. Support - Looking at my criteria, I've decided to support. Out of the reasons given in the opposition, only the PROD and speedy deletion concerns are good in my view, but all editors make mistakes from time to time, and the important thing is that she learnt from these mistakes, which is what I want to see in admins. I don't give much weight to edit count and even if I (unfairly in my view) treat "automated edits" as worthless, the user still passes my base edit count requirements, easily in fact with the old account included. CT Cooper · talk 13:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
65. Support - Mlpearc Public (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
66. Support - A little green but otherwise I think he'd make a decent admin eventually. SnottyWong ^confess 22:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
67. Support not perfect, but no deal breaker problems that I can see with this candidate. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
68. Support - I share the content concerns but think you can handle the extra buttons. I was a little hesitant, but there are some editors I deeply respect supporting you. Will Wikipedia be a better place if you are helping out here with the admin workload as you find possible? I believe the answer is yes. Just remember to do your homework and get plenty o' sleep too! (Gawd, I sound like I'm lecturing my stepdaughter.) Best wishes, Jusdafax 01:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
69. Support - I have positive recall observing theunicyclegirl. How did you forget your password? - you know you can often salvage it from a browser you used to login, but I digress. The plus point here is the fact GorillaWarfare is at school but has civil ability beyond what you may expect. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

    Gosh, I don't even remember what happened at this point. However, after three years with this account, I wouldn't change back even if I could. Thanks for the support! — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 02:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

70. Different admins have different strengths and different administrative interests. We should not expect any candidate to know how to do everything or want to do everything. In my mind, content creation is not a pre-requisite. She wants to go after vandals. Great! She is competent, trustworthy, able to take advice and criticism, willing to learn and grow, is cordial, and is not combative. Also, in response to Bejinhan (below), articles are built by communities. As editors develop their skills, they should not be expected to go back and update every single article they've worked on. Kingturtle (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
71. I appreciate GorillaWarfare's responses and behavior in this RfA, including her willingness to address problems when they've been mentioned. I recall seeing her name long before this RfA, and have always thought that she's a good editor. Acalamari (from Bellatrix Kerrigan) 17:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
72. Support, longstanding good editor. bd2412 T 00:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
73. Support. Honestly, if the tools allow someone with a long-standing, proven track record to accomplish their tasks more efficiently, then we should be giving them to them. Period. Full stop. Will GorillaWarfare be more able to accomplish her tasks if given the tools? Yes. Is she likely to abuse the tools, delete the homepage, or break the Wiki? No. Will jumping through ridiculous hoops by creating some content improve her vandal-whacking? No. Is adminship a big deal? No. The correct course of action seems obvious to me. All else is just standard RFA political asshattery. Trusilver 05:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
74. Support. IMO the main reason candidates need article writing experience is so that they appreciate the difficulty of creating content and don't go delete-happy. While GorillaWarfare is not primarily a content contributor, she has enough to gain my trust. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
75. Support. I'm doing this as moral support, in the spirit that I hope you will try again after taking time to address the issues raised by opposers. I've looked carefully at the arguments on both sides of this RfA, and the opposes strike me as piling on over little things that just aren't that bad, while your own work shows plenty of courtesy and good faith, and is clearly not without content work. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
76. Support. While the opposes raise some valid concerns, I think overall you'll be ok. PhilKnight (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

    "Suppport. Cyberthrone :) 19:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

    • Note – !vote made by a sock of a banned user. –MuZemike 15:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

77. Support, trustworthy user, and I'm unpersuaded by oppose arguments that reek of checklistism. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
78. Support. Obviously not a vandal, and seems friendly enough. More edits (i.e. experience) would probably serve her better as an admin (but hey, look who's talking!) :) --Mithrandir^∞ (Talk!) (Opus Operis) 05:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
79. Support. I agree with the Titoxd, and we need to maintain an adequate number of admins to prevent vandalism from slipping through at RC Patrol. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
80. Support - seems OK. Copntent work a bit limited, so make sure you take that up a notch going forward. And be careful with the CSD's - making the occasional hasty recommendation is one thing, but every hasty delete risks alienating a new editor. Euryalus (talk) 11:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
81. Support, to be honest, the things brought up by the opposers don't convince me not to support. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC).
82. Support You've been here for a long time, seem to be honest and a blemish or 2 isn't a big deal to me. Tommy! [message] 15:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
83. Support —Soap— 17:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
84. Support - From what I have seen in the answers to the questions above and the edits I have reviewed I think she has a clue and can be trusted with the tools. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 17:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
85. Support - Can't see a reason to think she is not worthy of the tust needed for the mop, the only thing that has given me pause is the relevantly recent nature of most of the contributions. I also share Titoxd feeling about the checklistism of some of the oppose's Codf1977 (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
86. Support Opposes aren't convincing. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 19:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
87. Support - has done good work, adminship is not a big deal, and the opposes are unimpressive.   — Jeff G.  ツ 19:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose – I am not liking the almost 70% automated edits, even if you do have 8,300 edits. Also this page reports that you have not voted in any RfA's or RfB's before, which is definitely an area an admin should have experience in. ••Pepper•• 21:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

   Why should voting in RfX's be a prerequisite for adminship? That approach seems to me to promote a closed shop. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) If I'm not mistaken, many editors like to see RfX activity for admins running for crat. While !voting in RfXs is no requirement for users running for admin, doing so is definitely a plus. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

   RfAs and RfBs are part of a bureaucrat's responsibilities. They are not at all part of the admin job description. There is no reason at all for it to be necessary for an administrator to have experience in these requests. We should not be judging candidates on something they are not responsible for. Kingturtle (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

   How does the fact that they are automated diminish them? Automated tools make the same edits I could and would do manually. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 21:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

   It's a matter of sample size. You can do multiple automated edits in the time it would take to do one manual edit, so automated edits hold less weight. I think it's about a ratio of 10:1, but others may be able to tell you more on that. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

   They're a way of making lots of edits quickly, boosting your edit count in preparation for an RfA. Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

   By the number of edits that you currently do have, I am pretty sure that all those automated edits were not for the sake of building up a reasonable edit count, but, as Doc Quintana said, the automated edits generally take less time, therefore they hold less weight. In terms of RfA's, I find it a very strong plus the the candidate knows the RfA process inside and out, and it is a minus if the candidate hasn't even participated in one. ••Pepper•• 21:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

   One, you seem to be misquoting Fastily, two, speaking of holding less weight, your argument looks like a symptom of severe editcountitis. Swarm^Talk 06:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

   Please.... just because someone bases an argument based on an analysis of various edit counts, doesn't mean they believe that editcount is the sum total a user's value to the project. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

   If viewing automated edits as less valuable simply because they take less time isn't editcountitis, it's worse. When it comes to edit count, vandal fighters should be held to a higher standard, but the argument automated edits generally take less time, therefore they hold less weight is completely ridiculous. Vandal fighting edits are worth the same whether they're automated or not. There's no logic in those arguments. Swarm^Talk 10:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

   True, I misquoted, and have fixed that. I still do believe that a manual edit is more weighty than a automated edit. As an over-exaggerated, yet still possible example: a user makes 10-15 edits over a period of 1 hour that eventually leads a page to become a Good Article. A vandal fighter makes 10-15 edits in a few minutes, and often, especially when carelessly using the tools, a mistake or 2 will slip buy unnoticed. Which user would I support? Most definately the one with a GA, not the careless vandal fighter. I am not saying that GorillaWarfare is a careless vandal fighter, nor am I saying that I would support a user for the sole reason of having a GA. I have noted the supports, but I will stay opposing for now. ••Pepper•• 12:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

   I like your response above GorillaWarfare, I've noticed a (IMO)exceedingly community concern over automated edits. They are easily done, thats why developers spend hours programming these tools, It is easier to make a couple of clicks to ie. revert an edit and warn an editor of their actions, but you know what, it still takes the same awareness, clue and experience to make the decision to click that tool and make that automated edit as it does to do it manually. And if I were to hurry and make a bunch of edits before a RfA just to boost my count, it doesn't matter if I spend a solid hour clicking as fast as I can, or using a tool in 15 mins. to make the same edits, isn't it the accuracy of the edit that counts and I believe that is governed by the know-how of the editor not by the means of his edits. Mlpearc Public (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

2. Oppose. When it comes to project space edits, you're a bit on the low side: only 76 edits to AIV, 4 to RFPP, none to UAA or ANI and only two edits to Wikipedia talk pages are way too few for a metapedian. Even though I think you're a net positive and I morally support you, I have to oppose, because I don't think you're experienced enough in admin-related areas to be handed the tools. Sorry. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 21:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
3. I'm not worried about the proportion of automated edits and I'm certainly not bothered about lack of RFA involvement as this is an RFA not an RFB. However I am concerned about some of your speedy deletion tags. I've restored one and moved it to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GorillaWarfare/Mii Party as an example - over hasty and not in my view "no context". As it says at Special:NewPages "articles should not be tagged for speedy deletion as having no context (CSD A1) or no content (CSD A3) moments after creation, as not all users will place all their information in their first revision". So I'm sorry, but I don't think you are ready yet - hope to be able to support in a few months, but please learn a little more restraint at newpage patrol. ϢereSpielChequers 22:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC) NB also not bothered about age and not particularly about the amount of editing, but in my view while you are on the right path the prod and CSD examples indicate that a bit more practice is needed. However if this attempt fails I hope to be able to support before the year is over. ϢereSpielChequers 11:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

   Perhaps you're right in that it was a quick tag, but it was also deleted per that tag, not denied. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 22:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

   Its one of the problems of speedy tagging when as in this case the editor whose article was tagged hasn't edited since, that's why the instructions ask people not to be as quick as you were with A1 or A3 tags. Do you still think that article was "lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article"? ϢereSpielChequers 22:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

   No, I agree with you that it was probably too quick of a tag. I just wanted to point out that it was not denied. And I do understand how that could be discouraging for a new editor -- I will be sure to keep that in mind with my future edits, regardless of whether or not I have admin tools. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 22:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

   In all fairness, Iphoneorange (talk · contribs), the page's creator, is a rather sporadic editor. Nevertheless, I concur with WereSpielChequers in that it is discouraging. Nobody likes their work being thrown away, let alone within minutes of it being saved. Maybe WSC was alluding to WP:BITE in regards to the swiftness of your tagging. Airplaneman ✈ 22:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

   It wasn't denied, because it was deleted many hours later, as the original author hadn't made any changes by then.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

   Yes I think it bitey to tag good faith creations as quickly as that, but thanks for acknowledging that it was overhasty. One reason why A1 and A3 tags are not supposed to be applied in an articles first few minutes is that if the article isn't tagged the editor may add the second sentence that gives context. But in this case "Mii Party is a Nintendo Wii game" on its own is in my view enough to assert that the article is about a computer game for a particular game system. So with respect to Ronhjones I also think that was the wrong tag, and it wasn't the only instance I saw, if it had been I would have disregarded it as an isolated mistake. ϢereSpielChequers 11:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

   A garbage article got put in the garbage. One sentence, no references, no effort. This is a case where the creator, not the tagger, ought know better (and got taught better). You have it right before you save. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

   I would like us to change policy so that all new articles required a reference, and have that policy clearly communicated to all article writers. But until and unless we do so it is still acceptable for people to start an article with one unreferenced sentence - admins should delete things per the policy that is not the policy we might like to have. ϢereSpielChequers 17:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

4. Oppose I would like to see more content editing. The proportion of automated edits is not a problem for me (mine were 85%...), but I did have 5000+ "normal edits" which just about got me through, you have less than 2000 "normal edits". I would expect quite a few editors to oppose with less than 2000 edits.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Oppose While a lot of automated edits are fine, they comprise almost all your edits which is not ok. Less than 50% of your edits are to article space, and your editing pattern is sporatic. I know we can't be on all the time, but you've been active less than half the months since account creation. I'm happy you've decided to take an interest in Wikipedia and please continue to work hard. However at this time, you do not meet my admin criteria. No prejudice against a second RfA maybe 6-12 months down the road. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 00:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

   What about WP:NONEED? Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 00:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

   I disagree with your use of NONEED. While in the ideal circumstances someone trustworthy holding the tools at any level of activity is a net benefit. I don't trust her because I don't think she has enough experience. The sporadic editing was just one of several reasons given to support that proposition. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

6. Oppose Sorry, but the limited content creation, the low number of projectspace edits, and the focus on automated edits gives me the opinion that you have limited experience throughout the project. This puts your Huggle count at about 2400, and your Twinkle count at 1700. That's not what I would consider a lot, if you plan to focus on that (I have 2900 Huggle edits and I haven't even touched it in months). I'd recommend waiting about four months, and during that time, you should write a few articles, maybe get one to GA/FA level, and explore more areas of the project, including RfA, AfD, etc. —fetch·comms 02:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
7. Oppose: Little to no involvement in template, category, file, and portal namespaces shows a lack of versatility, although these are more obscure areas of the project, it is likely you will come across something here. Also, I tend to expect over 5,000 non-automated edits for admins; you have 1932. As Fetchcomms points out, that number is very little, as someone told me that Hugglers get up to 2,000 edits in a weekend. A lack of content editing (3 articles; two stubs and a dab) and no "recognized" content. Write some stuff, or improve something and try again in about a year.  ℳono  02:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
8. Oppose at this time. This edit gave me a bad case of Facepalm. The editor was explaining their extensive experience with the subject, and you dinged them for not mentioning that they had edited the article as well. Practice a bit more, and maybe in 6 months to a year, I'll be able to support.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

   I don't see how that's not a valid thing to say. An interest in the subject does not necessarily mean an editor has a vested interest with the article... — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 03:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

   I would have to agree with GorillaWarfare, he did edit the article numerous times and didn't mention it. Also with his strong keep, it did seem he had a interest in the article, he was only reminding them of the policy and it isn't a personal attack. Plus even if it was wrong, I wouldn't just slam the door of them for six months just for this one mistake, all people do make mistakes from time to time, admins are not perfect and have never been. Techman224^Talk 04:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

9. Oppose per SarekOfVulcan, large automated edits proportion, and lack of content building. If you don't see anything wrong with the AFD comment, now is clearly not the time to give you access to the tools. Even without that, I would not support at this time. Vodello (talk) 03:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
10. Oppose Sorry but I have to oppose at this time. Looking at your recent history I see several things that concern me over your knowledge of policy. The speedy tagging identified by WereSpielChequers above and at Serwan Baban concern me over you knowledge of the speedy criteria, which is an area you say you want to work in. The Route M4 (Manhattan) article where you restored the prod tag to the article twice after it was removed, was only a couple of weeks ago and how this was wrong had to be pointed out to you on your talk page. The AFD comment brought up by SarekOfVulcan is also concerning. Given that speedy deletion and AFD closing are areas where you want to work in as an admin these recent examples, combined with not having much content experience, lead me to have to oppose at this time. I see evidence you are learning from you mistakes however and hope (if this fails) I can support you in the future where you have more experience showing knowledge of policy in the areas you want to work in. Davewild (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    I have moved Route M4 (Manhattan) to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GorillaWarfare/Route M4 (Manhattan) so non-admins can see what happened as two editors below have raised it as an issue as well. Davewild (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

11. Oppose. The overall experience is insufficient at this time. Vandal fighting is certainly appreciated, but for an admin candidate I would generally want to see greater evidence, at least in terms of absolute numbers if not the percentage, of involvement in other areas of the project. In particular, a bit more content work would certainly be a plus - right now your top edited article has only 10 edits by you. Looking at the projectspace contrib record, only 268 edits to Wikipedia+Wikipedia talk namespaces. A few recent problems with CSD tagging; you mention that you plan to do AfD closings, but from looking at your contrib record since the start of this year, I see little AfD participation before July. One needs a bit longer than a month of active AfD work to really get the hang of things there. The diff provided by Sarek is also somewhat worrying - bringing up a "vested interest" argument in an AfD usually requires more substantial evidence than what was available here. Overall the candidates strikes me as someone who is certainly on the right track but is not quite ready for adminship yet. Nsk92 (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
12. Oppose. Little experience of building the encyclopedia, and I was very unimpressed with the AfD brought up by SarekofVulcan (vested interest in an area of academic study?), by the overhasty speedy tagging, and by the misunderstanding of the proposed deletion process. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
13. I find the attitude displayed by this recent edit to be distasteful and indicative of a patronisingly bossy mentality that too many administrators already share. I find it doubly distasteful to see it displayed in a schoolchild. Malleus Fatuorum 14:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
14. Oppose Content is a consideration, but your deletion record is the big issue. Following on from where Malleus left off, if an admin is doing his or her job properly, vested interests are irrelevant at AfD (unless it is a breach of WP:COI). All that matters is qualitative discussion based on policy or guidelines. That fact that you see a vested interest as an issue suggests to me that you would close AfDs democratically, which is entirely wrong. As a non-admin, I'd be grateful if an uninvolved admin or crat could verify DaveWild's claim that a PROD was incorrectly re-added twice on Route M4 (Manhattan). I'm in no doubt that it's true, but it would be helpful to get confirmation from an uninvolved party. --WFC-- 15:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    I suppose I count as involved, but I believe that is accurate. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 16:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GorillaWarfare/Route M4 (Manhattan) so non-admins can see the history. Davewild (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    Thanks to both of you. I can say this because I will never run for adminship unless there is a recall process. I don't blame you for restoring the PROD in that instance; as an admin I would have considered deleting on the grounds that in spirit it clearly fails the criteria (albeit only after exhausting dialogue with the creator). If handled correctly, I would have given you credit for showing common sense. However, removal of a PROD can never be considered vandalism. --WFC-- 01:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

15. Oppose A Wikipedian since July, 2007, but really only highly active since the beginning of the year. Low number of edits to article space; meager article creations (4 articles/11 redirects). On the flip side, the candidate has developed significant vandal-fighting cred's. One day this candidate will be a fine administrator; however, I don't believe now is the time.--Hokeman (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
16. Oppose – Although you say you would like to work in vandalism revertion, I would also like to see more content building. Also, I'm not trying to be picky on edits, but for a user who specializes in anti-vandalism, I would like to see more edits than you have. In addition, I am concerned about your CSD taggings. A7 is not about notability, but importance; if an article has any credible assertion of importance, it cannot be deleted under A7. This is frequently misunderstood by new page patrollers. If DaveWild was correct that Route M4 (Manhattan) was double-prodded, then I have some concerns about that as well. I would like to see more edits spread out in different parts of the project besides vandalism revertion. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GorillaWarfare/Route M4 (Manhattan) so non-admins can see the history. Davewild (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

17. Oppose - On the question of creations, I think it's reasonable to expect an RfA candidate's own creations, however few they are, to demonstrate that the candidate has a fairly sound knowledge of content policy. GorillaWarfare's contributions do not. My opinion here is that a little more experience and an increased sense of judgement are needed - things that will come with a few more months of more experience. One way to get the CSD issues right is not to tag if in doubt, but to watch the page and see what the more experienced patrollers do to it, and if you visit a lot of AfD debates, don't feel compelled to leave a comment each time, but come back and see how it was wound up..--Kudpung (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    BTW: I'm afraid I also have to add to my reasons the legitimate comment about misleading edit summaries (pointed out by Dr Blofeld in Oppopse #30 below), summaries that were made even during the course of this RfA. --Kudpung (talk) 01:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

    Looking at Richard Riddell and Nigel Levings as they were created by GorillaWarfare, can you explain how they are lacking in "sound knowledge of content policy"?  Frank  |  talk  18:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    Frank, Can you give us a good reason how they demonstrate that knowledgee? And your reasons for supporting this RfA?--Kudpung (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    This is a discussion, and you're avoiding answering my question. I'll answer yours, however. Both articles are well-written in encylopedic tone and content. They both have multiple sources independent of the subject. (Admittedly, Levings is a bit thin, but the refs are there.) They are properly formatted in Wikipedia-standard style and the references appeared in the first drafts of both articles. They have appropriate internal wiki-links and sections you'd expect to find in an article. They both assert and demonstrate the notability of their subjects. All of these comments apply to the very first saved version of the two articles. In addition, the initial draft of Riddell is a more mature article than the initial draft of Levings, which indicates a greater knowledge of the article-building process developed in the intervening period (1 week). Now, can you give us a good reason how they do not demonstrate the "fairly sound knowledge of content policy" you listed in your oppose?  Frank  |  talk  18:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    Nine (9) very good reasons. Now can you give us a reason why you do not need to 'discuss' your Support vote?--Kudpung (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    I guess I was expanding on my support while you were asking the question. Please note that my support makes mention of this entry right here only in passing; I expanded on it above with additional reasons. Nevertheless, you still haven't answered my question: how do the candidate's contributions not show the knowledge of content policy you initially claimed?  Frank  |  talk  19:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    I don't need to expand on my answer, but as you asked: 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9. --Kudpung (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    I hope you don't mind my pointing out that those edits were all from 2007. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 19:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    Sheesh. I hope no-one judges me on edits I made 3+ years ago. Say, this edit I made in 2006, or this page I created. I'm still embarrassed. --Dweller (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    No, you don't need to expand, but neither did I, and as I've already indicated and you should already be aware, this is a discussion. That usually indicates give-and-take, back-and-forth. So it's a little unusual when folks don't want to expand on what they have to say, especially when questioned. And, with all due respect, your reasoning doesn't seem sound to me. They are stub articles from March and April over three years ago, and they aren't all obviously terrible creations anyway. And, since newer contributions are much more solid, what I take away from that is an editor who has learned and improved over time - certainly a quality we expect and respect.  Frank  |  talk  19:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    This comes across to me as yet another case of looking for fault, of which there are so many. It's no wonder that we're not promoting enough new administrators nowadays. Esteffect (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    When there has been so little activity to judge a candidate by, we have to dig deeper. I most certainly expect an RfA candidate to clean up before running for office, and it's not as if she hasn't had time. We've had RfAs close as not successful on this very point before. --Kudpung (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    Redacted, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

    (Unredacted - an apology was made, but the damage is done ) No, I wouldn't expect them too. I just lost a lot of respect for you, Kudpung.  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

    "I just lost a lot of respect for you, Kudpung." And administrator exits stage right.. and play the theme song. And.. scene. Regular editors, you can stop facepalming now. Vodello (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

    I don't think it's fair for GoprillaWarfare's RfA to be used as a platform for unjustified public vilification by admins of other editors, so the saga continues here and here.--Kudpung (talk) 07:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

    Neither do I, hence my redaction of my previous post... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

18. Oppose per User:Davewild mentioning the prod, which was recent. Per my RfA requirements: Ratio of edits are out of proportion, % Automated edits are too high (even for a Vandal patroler wanting to be an admin), queasy about policy understanding per CSDs in questions (user has a clue here though), AIV and Deletions aren't everything, and given the limited articles, this is tools to deal with people who edit articles. No RfA votes, which would help tell me that the user knows what admins face. Sorry, but at this time I can not support. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 22:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
19. Oppose - I've been on the fence and was considering a neutral comment but that proposed deletion pushed me over to the oppose column. The fact that it was so recent is what really disturbs me, and I think highlights the lack of policy knowledge from the candidate. The other troubling matter is the lack of participation in the project space, which was my first hint that you might be lacking in this area. I just don't have confidence that you're not going to misuse the tools if given them, not out of malice, but out of misunderstanding. In the near future with more experience you might be ready. -- Atama頭 23:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
20. Weak Oppose Largely per SarekOfVulcan and Atama. The answers to my three questions were wonderful and I'm glad that you replied to them the way that you did but you simply do not seem to have enough "experience" (a rather vague term on Wikipedia) to be an administrator yet. I'd say give it another 3-6 months and try again. You'll do fine next time around if you stay on this track and I look forward to supporting you next time around.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 00:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
21. Oppose. The candidate has made relatively few contributions and needs additional experience, as we see from SarekOfVulcan's example. With additional experience GorillaWarfare will probably make a fine sysop. Majoreditor (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
22. Oppose There is a calmness, and an openness and a willingness that I admire, and these are great qualities for an admin to have. However I'm opposing due to evidence brought forward that the candidate hasn't got enough all round experience of Wikipedia and has made some poor judgement calls (possibly due to that lack of experience). Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of quality editing to look at to balance the negative points. I would suggest and urge GorillaWarfare to gather more experience - and, if wanting to help out as an admin, to broaden that experience by getting involved in admin areas such as dispute resolution, AfD and RfA. Then try again in 6 or 12 months time. SilkTork *^YES! 15:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
23. Weak Oppose for now per Majoreditor. Look forward to supporting in the future after more meat-and-potatoes contributions. Toddst1 (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
24. Weak Oppose - Mainly automated edits. Ajraddatz 23:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
25. Oppose I hate to oppose, but I do like to see some content creation. You seem levelheaded, but I think you need to start seeing manual contributions. As of now, there is not much to judge on. In a couple of months, if you re-apply, my vote will probably be a support. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
26. Weak Oppose. Mainly per the above. I like the work you're doing, and I encourage you to keep it up. While the large number of automated edits is concerning, that aside, I think you would benefit from more experience working in the administrative side of the project. Whether this passes or not, keep up the good work and don't decrease the amount of automated edits you make - just have several thousand "normal" edits to counterbalance the automated edits. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
27. Oppose Per the reasons above, especially the hasty AfD tagging since you intend to work in the deletion area. Bejinhan talks 12:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC) There is also problems with some of the articles you created with your first account. [3] - This has only primary sources. [4] - This has no references at all. [5] - This has 2 sentences and no references. [6] - Why did you not use the references templates? I have already run Reflinks so it's alright now. [7] - Another completely unreferenced article. And a few others which isn't completely unreferenced but would need more sources. Bejinhan talks 12:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

    I've asked this question above, but I think it bears repeating: don't you think that edits from over three years ago carry significantly less weight than more recent creations, such as Richard Riddell and Nigel Levings, especially since those more recent creations are of such higher quality? It seems to me that this is an editor who learned quite a bit about proper content creation in the interim.  Frank  |  talk  13:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

    If GW has learned, why didn't she go back and get those articles corrected? Bejinhan talks 14:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

    Frank is right, however you have inspired me. I went through Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance and expanded/added third-party sources this afternoon. I'll work on the others as well! Nothing like a good project. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 02:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

    Not sure; perhaps she expected to be judged on all of her edits, not each? Are we expecting RfA candidates to be "practically perfect in every way"? It may seem like I'm badgering (I've been told as much this week already), but I really wouldn't be asking except that there is definitely recent evidence that those issues are resolved.  Frank  |  talk  15:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

    Frank, I look upon admins (or used to) as a role model. Previous edits certainly do carry significant weight when there is a dearth of material to evaluate, along with the lack of responsibility of cleaning up one's past until prompted during one's RfA. I have already pointed out that a recent RfA failed, among others, for this very reason. Two rights and a promise to be good if promoted, don't make nine or more wrongs (especially BLPs) right, and don't convince (me) of knowledge of policy.--Kudpung (talk) 05:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

    "Inspired"? Seriously? I think that shows how much initiative this candidate has. I want a diligent admin. I don't think we need an admin who has got to be prodded and "inspired" to cleanup articles she created. Bejinhan talks 04:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

    With all respect, I didn't realize we had sole responsibility for articles we created on Wikipedia. I would think that my cleanup of other articles shows as much diligence as cleanup of ones that I created. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 04:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

    I did not say that you have sole responsibility over the articles you created so don't take my words out of context. The articles you created and the condition they are in clearly reflects your level of commitment and understanding of article creation. I would think that you could at least start working on your articles if you understood what article creation is about. If you have the time to work on other articles, why not improve those you created? Why leave them in the condition they are in? Aren't you here to improve the encyclopedia? If not, then what are you here for? My oppose stays as it is. From my conversation with you here, I really think that you're not ready for adminship yet. At least, not now. Bejinhan talks 06:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

28. Weak Oppose - While I am willing to overlook occasional lapses in civility and maturity (none of us is perfect, and I'll willingly confess to having undergone said lapses on a few occasions myself), as well as a high quantity of automated edits, I am not as willing to overlook a lack of high-level content creation. At its core, participating in Wikipedia is about writing articles. Much of what we see over at WP:ANI ultimately deals with conflicts in the article-writing process (and, it must be noted, much of what eventually makes its way to ArbCom), and as such I believe it important that admins have a firm firsthand knowledge of that process. In the same way as being a complete article-writer and having no experience in admin-like tasks is a quick way to fail an RfA, I'm also of the belief that pure wikignoming/low-level content creation is not suited to the role of adminship. I regret having to oppose this RfA, but I simply don't see enough experience at the higher levels of article work that are so critical to wikipedia as a whole. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 05:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
29. Oppose Seems to lack adequate experience. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
30. Oppose Agree with Colonel. Also nobody seems to have shown a concern here that this editor has only ever created 4 articles in his existence on here. That's extremely poor. I've created more start class articles than that in 24 hours. This site is about content not a race to see who can get tools in the shortest amount of time with a distinct lack of encyclopedic contribution. Dr. Blofeld 11:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

    Curious. I count twelve (excluding redirects). I assume you ignored Theunicyclegirl? Still not that high, but higher than mine, I'd wager. TFOWR 11:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

    Try toolserver.org for the current account. Dr. Blofeld 12:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

    Incidentally you have even less 2 articles and they still made you an admin. I guess we do need a "police force" of editors who purely revert vandalism on wikipedia and protect the site. I just wish more editors who have this great desire to become adminstrators actually contributed a little more to the encyclopedia itself... Dr. Blofeld 12:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

    Indeed that's right - I suggested that would be the case in my post. The link I used was toolserver: my point was that you'd ignored the editor's previous username, created in 2006. TFOWR 12:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

    Herr Doktor. Do you count article expansion or correction as content creation or do you really insist that admins should have started lots of new articles? ϢereSpielChequers 13:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

    I don't expect much from anybody but a handful of DYKs, GAs whether expansions or created articles or at least some evidence that this user cares and thinks about wikipedia as an encyclopedia rather than a law court would be nice.... If you examine the bulk of her edits its very disappointing from a content point of view. If however her heart is more set on protecting what we have and ia willing to work consistently at it fighting vandlaism using admin tools this is at least something. Also false edit summaries. She neither "cleaned up" nor "wikified" the article. It misleads other editors reviewing her work. I'm sure it wasn't intentional but saying "applied cleanup tags" would have been better. Dr. Blofeld 15:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

31. Oppose per the candidate's lack of content creation and work in the project, template, category, file, and portal spaces, heavy focus on automated edits, and errors with CSD and AfD tags. Thus, I have concerns about the candidate's experience and knopwledge of policy. Laurinavicius (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
32. Oppose - Statistics don't usually tell the whole story, but when I see virtually all of a candidate's article and article talk edits in the single digits, alarm bells begin to sound. Upon digging a little deeper, all I found was an automated gnome machine. Sorry, but no. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
33. Oppose – very regretfully, as you appear to be generally on the right track, and willing to learn. Supporters and opposers have brought good arguments for both positions, and I've been wavering all week. (Your answer to my question was somewhat reassuring.) I'm ending up in the oppose section essentially for the reasons expressed by User:Nsk92 at oppose #11, and because when you have made some errors in judgment, they've been towards deleting and/or biting, which is more concerning in a novice admin compared to one who errs on the side of keeping articles or holding back. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
34. Oppose, per User:Nsk92. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
35. Oppose: Insufficient experience because very little content provided. In general I believe that an admin can't administrate contributors, if the admin him/herself has been a poor contributor. I look at the admin tools as a stewardship to help content providers: a poor contributor can't be a leader without proper evident experience. --Sulmues ^(talk) 14:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
36. Oppose I believe an admin should have some significant content work. I ask not for GAs or FAs, but simply major effort into article or articles. I believe it is necessary, and that blocks should not be handed down from an ivory tower. If you haven't been in the trenches ...--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

    Isn't this a fairly major effort? (Or were you looking for more volume of content work?) –xeno^talk 20:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry to break into the "do not edit" but as xeno is a crat and may be the crat who is reviewing this, I will respond. Yes, I want to see more than that. That's about minimum DYK standard.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - Neutral for now until further arguments by others. I see positive contributions and I recognise your name. However, you've not got a huge amount of edits in Wikipedia space and you've only been properly active on this account for 8 months. That last part isn't an opposing factor, it's just a minor concern, so for now...neutral. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Neutral I think you're on the way there. Keep up the good work, and try again in a few months. Doc Quintana (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

   Any particular reason though? At least I've explained... Paralympiakos (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

   A bunch of them, but you're right, I should explain a bit more. Ultimately, Gorilla's only been around actively since January (he only had about 800 of his 8,000 before then), the automated edits inflate his experience, and 8,000 manual edits is probably only on the cusp of what's neccessary to pass an rfa these days it seems (for me, I think 5,000 edits and one year is fine if they understand policy, but I also think that number can vary depending on the candidate, if they're around for 10 years and get a million edits but are a trouble maker, they shouldn't have the mop). However, like you, I have seen Gorilla around and I think she's on the right path, so I wanted to give a goodwill opinion here in the hopes she'll try again later. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

   While this doesn't change my oppose vote. I found that this user under her former name User:Theunicyclegirl had about 2000 additional manual edits. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

   That's true, but I think the name change also degrades the value of those edits somewhat as well. It's an inexact science to be certain. Doc Quintana (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

   Neutral since the user has done some excellent work and understands policy, as seen in question 9, but I can't support due to the large percentage of automated edits. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 20:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Moved to support. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 20:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

3. I would support if you had a few thousand more edits. Try again in three to six months. Access Denied ^talk _contribs editor review 22:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

   Editcountitis? What do you see wrong with the contributions they have made?  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

4. Neutral (mainly since I think that it should be the editors that trust you, with the admins as a bonus; I'd only oppose or support if my opinion is strongly on one side). While I do think that you have a good grasp of how the spam black- and whitelists are handled, I am not sure if you have a sufficient idea of the policy concerns behind it. Although most spam is indeed plain spam .. some of the blacklistings that are being performed are due to abuse of core policies and guidelines, or misuse the possibilities of Wikipedia in such a way that some links don't need too much abuse (if any ..) to go over the limit. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Pluses and minuses here.  f o x  18:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
6. Neutral for now. Bwrs (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
7. Hate staying in this section, but I'm too unsure right now. May be swayed either way. ceranthor 20:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
8. I'm neutral on this one too. Nothing per se makes me oppose, and most of the opposes seem pretty low on my hierarchy of reasons to oppose, but the content creation isn't terribly good either. I'm not going to be upset if you pass, but I suspect you'll be better off addressing the areas of concern and coming back in three months. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

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.