Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/GorillaWarfare

2013-05 admin
GW has been editing with us for a couple of years, amassed 4½k edits locally. GorillaWarfare has recently submitted a project to the Google Summer of Coding with a direct relationship to the work of Wikisource. Having more people who are coding capable is a benefit for the wiki, and I see benefits will flow from the admin access and the project. GorillaWarfare is already an admin at the big house, with 21k edits there, so comes trained in use of the tools and the system, and has demonstrated the trust and the right capabilities of when to, and not to, use the tools. — billinghurst  sDrewth  07:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words and consideration. I accept this nomination. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support—I've not had much to do with GW, but I like what I've seen. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support—Maury (talk) 08:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support— Makes sense to me. - George Orwell III (talk) 10:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support -- AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support--Mpaa (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, Jeepday (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support—Zyephyrus (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Clockery Fairfield (talk·contribs) 16:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Appointed.[//en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3AGorillaWarfare] Hesperian 13:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

2014-06 confirmation

 * Calling him "active" is a bit of a stretch, as he's only edited on three days since last August, and all of those were for the Introduction to a new work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, GorillaWarfare is "active" per the definition at Restricted access policy: "An 'inactive administrator' is one who has not edited during the past six months and has not made more than 50 edits during the last year." Hesperian 08:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Calling her a him is inaccurate. Molly looks nothing like a him.
 * I'm not going to judge people by looks.
 * Looks like at least one person doesn't...
 * —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 03:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC) I seem to be getting extremely fickle these days. —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 16:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Zyephyrus (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * we are generous with our admin rightsl; GW is active within the WMF framework, and a well-experienced and trusted user, so for me nothing has changed from the granting of rights. — billinghurst  sDrewth  16:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * — Ineuw talk 03:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * — AuFCL (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * --Jusjih (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

2015-07 confirmation

 * Note: 1 edit in the last year, on 25 July 2014. Very active at the English Wikipedia, where she currently sits on the Arbitration Committee.

Hesperian 01:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * --Zyephyrus (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Too few actions; too many hats, altogether too many hat-collecting glory monkeys . AuFCL (talk) 07:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's good to have an arbitrator around active or inactive. — Ineuw talk 13:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would agree except that the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee is a misnomer—its members do not arbitrate. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * per our policy on inactive admins. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi all! I am unfortunately extremely inactive here, largely due to the workload over at enwiki. Although I am an administrator here, I'm not sure I've ever used the tools. Though I do hope to come back when I get more time, it will be to work on transcriptions, and I don't foresee needing the admin tools. I certainly feel I'm trustworthy enough to use them (or not use them, as it were), but I don't personally think I'm liable to use them much or at all. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * - although GorillaWarfare may not intend to use the tools, there is no reason to distrust their having them, and I respect their forthrightness in saying so, and their attention to the discussion. BD2412 T 17:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * we decided to skip intermediate rights and trust people who were competent. GW is active, clueful and extremely trusted. — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * --Jusjih (talk) 03:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * — per our policy on inactive Admins. — George Orwell III (talk) 03:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * per Billinghurst. Being a sysop on two wikis does not mean you're holding too many hats.  Green Giant  ( talk )  03:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

2016-08 confirmation

 * - no reason to distrust with continued use of the mop. BD2412 T 14:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * --Zyephyrus (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * -- Outlier59 (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * — Ineuw talk 01:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * no reason not to, though I would like to see more activity — billinghurst  sDrewth  06:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * . Improving edit summaries will be better.--Jusjih (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * — Ineuw talk 05:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Jianhui67 (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)