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)[reply]