GuildWiki talk:Requests for adminship/Warwick (3)


 * You want to stop this RFA? RT 18:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, this was an old one reopened. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 18:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You screwed it up... your supposted to start a new page RT 18:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, since its my first RfA. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 18:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW I do more guildwiki than wikipedia, wikipedia's just sometimes on the side when Gwiki is slow RT 21:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Moved it to a new page, as the first one is archived and needs to be left in the archive.[[Image:Entrea Sumatae.png|Entrea Sumatae]]Entrea Sumatae  [Talk]  23:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Notes from buraucrat
1) You can never have too many admins.

2) Editcounts and total worth time on the Wiki is always nice to have, but those are not the only measures that are looked at. Remember: a sysop is basically the same as any old user, they just have new tools. Warwick is right when he says: don't judge solely on age, personality, etc. Think about how he would handle the added responsibility. Would he do good with his new powers? Does he need those powers? Is there fear of abuse? Etc.

3) I'm a bcrat so I can sysop and desysop at will. Don't worry if Warwick's sister/brother/whatever come and mess things up; even if they ban a bunch of people, delete stuff, etc. I can fix it soon enough. Can't imagine any real permanent harm.

4) This whole shared account crap is rather ridiculous. I am skeptical myself and more than a bit upset with the supposed brother, since it has caused problems on more than just a personal scale. However, please do try to remain civil and follow GW:NPA as well as GW:AGF.

5) Don't rectroactively throw all of Warwick's actions into doubt; before any of this crap started to happen, did anyone suspect or accuse Warwick of account sharing, as the cause of any bad (or good) behavior? No, we stuck it to him. Warwick alone was responsible for the account's actions. If you ever valued Warwick as a contributor or friend, then keep that past history solid. It does him offense to do otherwise.

6) Finally, I would like to note that while I am not inclined to sysop Warwick at this time - the community seems to be completely non-supportive at the moment - I do think that the sole cause of dissent at the moment is the shared account. I don't think anyone else truly dislikes or distrusts Warwick past that. You can not deny his enthusiasm for GuildWiki, misplaced as it sometimes is; you can not deny that he is quite active, although it is sometimes trivial; you can not deny that he knows the ways of the wiki and fights vandalism, as we all do. There are definite good and bad qualities but I think the present fiasco is overshadowing all the good parts. I could see Warwick as a sysop in the future.

(T/C) 08:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * She, entropy. She. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 15:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Warw's getting Opposes because of the recent drama, mainly. If the dust had settled a bit, and there wouldn't have been such confusion, you'd get more Supoorts, I think. --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG]]-- (s)talkpage 15:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I did ask people not to make their vote on the drama recently, but I suppose the speech was too boring and long for anyone (Except probably Jedi) to read through. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 15:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I read it.. if that counts for anything. -- Brains12 \ Talk 15:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I read through it, but not too thorough, when you created the page. I honestly cannot decide atm. RLTM bugging me, the recent drama around you... --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG]]-- (s)talkpage 16:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Recent drama around me = Bad. But it actually had nothing to do with me, and I'm the only person using this account at the moment. The problem is, No-one believes that. And brains, Well that makes it all worthwhile =P. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 16:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, at best we can give you another chance. But this means that both negative and positive contributions need to be wiped from you record. --[[Image:OrgXSignature.jpg]] 16:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesnt mean you have to. You could take my word that 99-100% of all negative contributions (Actually, 99% - I accidently wiped a page and replaced it with the cat) were of my brother. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 16:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that there is no way we can be certain that's true. That's why I'm suggesting a completely clean record for you. --[[Image:OrgXSignature.jpg]] 16:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Problem being you can't wipe my contribs, or my editcount. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 16:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant it as a figure of typing. --[[Image:OrgXSignature.jpg]] 16:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Accualy, if I were to go around deleting every page Warw has ever editing, and then restoring without his edits, I would wipe his contribs. IMO it was the wrong time to put an RFA though, I'd have waitied until it had settled a little. R</B>T</B> 20:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless
When people say they couldn't trust it because my brother may get access to it, so what? He's never vandalised anything:- Check my contribs. Even if I hadn't split the account with him, he wouldn't have vandalised, and the history of the account's contributions shows that. So as far as I can gauge, what you're saying is that either:
 * 1) If given the power I would vandalise
 * 2) If given the power my brother would vandalise (Null- cache clears every log-out of aol, so I have to log in every time, and now that I've change password thats no problem from him being able to access it).
 * 3) Somthing else which I havn't thought of
 * 4) You're sheerly disagreeing because of the Mafia incident
 * So which is it? --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 19:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking as an "outsider" with no opinion on the Mafia issue, I think the main problem is that people can't trust you because you share an account. If you want an admin, you want to trust him, you don't want to be thinking whether he might be Person A or Person B, you want just that one person who was actually promoted to admin. Obviously, if you have changed your password so only you can access it, that's all well and good - but the trust still isn't there. I'm guessing that could be part of the reason for some of the oppose votes. -- Brains12 \ Talk 19:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't like the "which one's the admin?" idea, but at the same time, I think both of them would be fair admins one way or another; I can't say for sure which is which, but there's not been a serious problem ever so far, so I would say the number of people on the account doesn't matter much in this case. --[[image:GEO-logo.png]]<font color="#237d00"> Jïörüjï Ðērākō.> <font color="#237d00">.cнаt^  20:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What I can't understand is why people hide their dislike behind walls of "If we gave you admin powers you'd vandalise" "We cant trust your brother" and dont just say "I SAYZ NOES BCUZ UR BRO SAYZD DAT SCREWD UP SHADOWZ MAVIA GAMEZ!"... Obviously, not like that, but you get the point. If it was like that, GW:AGF... --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 20:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am, and once this silly feud has been behind us I may consider supporting you, but atm I don't feel that you are likely to get adminship R</B>T</B> 20:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I SAYZ NOES BCUZ UR BRO SAYZD DAT SCREWD UP SHADOWZ MAVIA GAMEZ

Off-topic: IS THERE A GODDAMN POLICY FOR EVERYTHING IN THIS JOINT!? <font color="Purple">Yikey <font color="Green">∞  20:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Its probable, but at least we're not GWW. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 20:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * .....-- Brains12 \ Talk 20:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:WP:SNOW anyone? R</B>T</B> 20:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's true, Brains. "Excuse me, your image "Haunter" must be uploaded as "User:Yikey/Haunter".
 * But I'm not his owner. *uploads under Trainer Ash/Haunter* *warned* <font color="Purple">Yikey <font color="Green">∞  20:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And RT, I'm just tired of everyone hiding their true motives. Its irritating, and an insult to me. If you actually think that I'd vandalise if I got admin powers, that is A) breaking GW:AGF and B) a insult to me. If you dont like me, and thats the reason that you've opposed, just say so.. Oh, and sorry Brains. We here in Gwiki like to pretend we hate GWW =P --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 20:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I hate that policy, I hate it, I hate it, I hate it R</B>T</B> 20:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against warwick, I have something against account sharing R</B>T</B> 20:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is somthing which is no longer happening. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 20:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll believe that. However, the ultimate question remains. Why do you think you need to be an admin? --[[Image:OrgXSignature.jpg]] 20:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Imo, because she can, and has the capabilities. --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG]]-- (s)talkpage 20:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What? =P, sorry viper but what? Anyway, Org- I think that you need decent "Crime Fighting Skeelz" (ref=Viper), Decent wiki contribution (Which I think I have), activity on the 'wiki (Which I think I have), and experience (Which I think I have). --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 20:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if it is no longer happening, it happened recently, very recently R</B>T</B> 20:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you'd make a good admin, but I feel that we already have plenty of admins. The vandalism problem isn't as big as it used to be, and if we add more admins I'm getting the feeling that this is a constant plagued wiki. --[[Image:OrgXSignature.jpg]] 20:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As Entropy said above, "You can never have too many admins". --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 20:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but perhaps we have enough. If you have too many admins people won't know who to go to anymore, Y'know. --[[Image:OrgXSignature.jpg]] 20:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We have 4(I think) American Admins, and 2 European. I'm european. As I said in my RfA, Viper has his other games, and RT has his other games + normal WP. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 20:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I dont see the difference between me playing a lot of GW, and me playing a lot of Diablo II. --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG]]-- (s)talkpage 20:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Difference is playing a lot of =/= playing a lot of GuildWiki. --<font color="#237d00"> Jïörüjï Ðērākō.> <font color="#237d00">.cнаt^  20:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is what I don't get, I don't think my editing time has decreced since I played EQ2, also I don't edit WikiPedia that much, so I don't see your point R</B>T</B> 20:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm hardly playing GW at the moment, yet I still have plenty of time to pop onto the wiki. It doesn't matter if someone plays another game, really. Oh, and making other admins look lazy isn't a good thing. --[[Image:OrgXSignature.jpg]] 20:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I dont know =P. I dont see a lot of edits from you, viper, then when theres vandalism, *POW*, you charge in, massacre the vandals, then run off again =P. Its like you have some Extra-Sensory thing in your head to tell you when vandals are on the wiki. What was that above, btw, with the "She has the capabilities" above? RT, it doesnt make much difference, but it DOES decrease your time on the wiki. And Org, im not..--[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 20:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but you are making claims that Viper and RT spend less time on the wiki which is not necessarily true. --[[Image:OrgXSignature.jpg]] 20:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It accualy increases my wikitime, I can edit using the EQ2 in game browser - meaning that when I'm accualy playing I sometimes pop into the wiki. R</B>T</B> 20:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm making claims that viper and RT spend less time on the wiki then I do- Whenever I'm online I have the 'wiki open. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 20:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Me to... <B>R</B><B>T</B> 20:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't not have Wiki open. I don't edit much, but I lurk RC. --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG]]-- (s)talkpage 20:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)I think that goes for a lot of people. The keeping wiki open part I mean. --[[Image:OrgXSignature.jpg]] 20:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Btw, Capabilities = stuff liek activity, wiki knowledge and the likes --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG]]-- (s)talkpage 20:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I mean I'm actually on the wiki- I have 3 computers =P. and viper, I know, but were you saying that to me? --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 20:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Quote: "Why do you think you need to be an admin?" Well, I gave my opinion on that. Albeit reallyfrikkenshort ;) --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG]]-- (s)talkpage 20:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Were you answering for me, or giving your opinion? =P. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 20:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but because she can isn't really a good reason now is it? ;)--[[Image:OrgXSignature.jpg]] 20:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll quote myself on this: "Well, I gave my opinion on that". So, basically, I just gave my opinion on a question that wasn't directed at me or smthing... Idk. And "because she can" is a reference to "meep, meep, because I can". Readem, iirc said that --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG]]-- (s)talkpage 20:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This page is reaching archive time.. ;-; --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 20:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * At least it isn't filled with mindless spam. Oh, and Viper, I just don't think that simply because Readem said it it becomes a credible argument. --[[Image:OrgXSignature.jpg]] 20:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I didnt mean to imply that. It was just a random quote thrown into the discussion. --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG]]-- (s)talkpage 21:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh --[[Image:OrgXSignature.jpg]] 21:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I dont think you've seen much of the mostal side of me. Aka, missing my spam contribs which were actually useful. I edited about 1000 articles in the space of around 30 mins~ and none of it was spam.. I've been reverting any vandalism that I've seen. And I also think that your view of me has been inflicted with dislike.. Viper, so do you think that I'd make a good admin, or was the whole thing just a random quote? O_o.. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 21:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC) --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 21:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'm pretty neutral in my opinion towards you. However, every healthy discussion has both supportive and opposing arguments in it. -- 21:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * aha, so you're neutrally opposing me? ;). --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 21:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Lazyness
Yeah, I think you make a good admin. --- -- (s)talkpage 21:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest, thats surprising, because on all of the others (Which I suppose may have been because they were posted by my brother) you voted /nosupport. Or were you just too lazy to vote support? --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 21:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose I can blame that on my lazyness. It actually was because I don't like to vote soon, and hop 3 times later on and shizl. I think --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG]]-- (s)talkpage 21:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 21:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You should probably let this RfA die and try again in a few months, Warwick. --[[Image:OrgXSignature.jpg]] 21:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * O_o.. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 21:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Again?--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 21:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No thanks =P. I've already had a telling-off from Entropy for the amount of RfA's that have come out of this account --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 21:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I said no such thing and I could care less about how many times someone tries for adminship (within reason, and yours is sound). "This is getting out of hand" means that "I think this whole issue (encompassing everything; not just RfA) is getting too much attention." In other words, I like it that you have been doing a lot more meaningful stuff lately (spam, userpage editing, talkpage commenting, etc. are not very productive compared to mainspace edits, usually). But I think that your defensive stance, while understandable, is not helping to resolve the situation. Try and rise above. The truth will prevail eventually, and concentrating on being helpful is the best way to improve trust right now. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 02:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I thought you'd meant the amount of RfA's was getting out of hand (Yeah, only just noticed this)- The recent edits I've been doing have all been mainspace (Unique Item Category Project). There was a lot of talkpage spamming a while back, but that was my brother because he wanted to improve his ranking in special:mostlinked. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr.) 19:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts
Alright, I'll say what's on my mind. I've known Warwick for quite some time, both ingame and on the wiki and I'd say that he's an okay guy, except for the fact that he's a she. With all the stuff with Warwicks brother (who I probably spoke to a lot ingame and thought I was the real Warwick - May, was it?) I didn't know who was who. The 'other' Warwick tends to lie a lot, or make stuff up and after some time I couldn't tell the truth from made-up stories. Now the 'other' Warwick appears to be gone and I think everyone should be given a second chance. But everything that happened keeps bothering me and I hope you understand, Warwick. To just say 'OK so your brother is gone from the wiki so I can trust you 100% now' - that's something I won't easily do. I'm quite a sceptical person actually so I don't take everything for granted.

On the other side I didn't know if you'd be that good an admin - but then again how good did I know you? I only knew your brother it seems. You are really active and really work for the wiki, which is a good thing and something you won't see me doing, you really got the spirit. I suppose I'll change my vote to neutral, but I'll vote support if you can convince me of the fact that you deserve to be an admin. I also got the feeling you're trying too hard to be an admin... but then again you claim that your brother did it.

OK, I believe you. If we all just forget that your brother exists - how good an admin would you be? A pretty good one, I suppose. Oh, and: don't take anything bad I said of you personal, because it was probably directed at your brother. -- -- talkpage 21:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Was it you, or your brother that invited me to their guild? <B>R</B><B>T</B> 21:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have 3 brothers, which one do you mean? And I'm not in your guild :| --[[Image:Progr.jpg]] -- talkpage 21:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh wait nvm. --[[Image:Progr.jpg]] -- talkpage 21:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I dont remember inviting you myself, so it must have been my brother. And progger, I'll give you reasons tommorow- I'm off. Night all. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 21:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Gn, userpage spam? or was that your brother? <B>R</B><B>T</B> 21:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I see where you're going with this, =P. But yes, it was my brother. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 21:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I refuse to believe Warwick is a she. What next? Was Frodo really a short human and not a hobbit? *le gasp* Warwick, you are a dude in my book. Just wanted to input my 3.4 cents. Anemos 23:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I give second chances to just about everyone, including vandals, if I think they're worth it...if I truly distrusted Warwick/May then I would have just banned them awhile for sharing accounts and causing a ruckus. You know? In all honesty though, I don't think this is an issue of "second chances", because as...uh...May says above, Warwick never did anything actually wrong such as vandalize. It is more about trust and acceptance. At worst I would accuse May of poor judgment without thinking of consequences first. But we all make mistakes, and is there anything unnatural about trusting a sibling? Nah... (T/C) 02:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly =|. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 07:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Progger's Speech & Response
Okay, yesterday he said:

Alright, I'll say what's on my mind. I've known Warwick for quite some time, both ingame and on the wiki and I'd say that he's an okay guy, except for the fact that he's a she. With all the stuff with Warwicks brother (who I probably spoke to a lot ingame and thought I was the real Warwick - May, was it?) I didn't know who was who. The 'other' Warwick tends to lie a lot, or make stuff up and after some time I couldn't tell the truth from made-up stories. Now the 'other' Warwick appears to be gone and I think everyone should be given a second chance. But everything that happened keeps bothering me and I hope you understand, Warwick. To just say 'OK so your brother is gone from the wiki so I can trust you 100% now' - that's something I won't easily do. I'm quite a sceptical person actually so I don't take everything for granted.

On the other side I didn't know if you'd be that good an admin - but then again how good did I know you? I only knew your brother it seems. You are really active and really work for the wiki, which is a good thing and something you won't see me doing, you really got the spirit. I suppose I'll change my vote to neutral, but I'll vote support if you can convince me of the fact that you deserve to be an admin. I also got the feeling you're trying too hard to be an admin... but then again you claim that your brother did it.

OK, I believe you. If we all just forget that your brother exists - how good an admin would you be? A pretty good one, I suppose. Oh, and: don't take anything bad I said of you personal, because it was probably directed at your brother. -- -- talkpage 21:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, heres my input:


 * I dont think that anyone can actually "Deserve" to be an admin- They can just be good at what they do, :P. Aka, vandal fighting, wikicoding.. etc. To be honest, at the moment I think that its more of a problem with trusting me.
 * Yeah, I can relate to not believing everything; I'm fairly sceptical of things myself (Talk:Miniature Polar Bear). Yeah, I can admit to having done that- I mean, I didnt really believe it.
 * Admittedly I can do a fairly good job with any vandal fighting without being an admin; and I do fight vandalism/tag people for banning- But RT and Viper can't be there all of the time. The problems we used to have with vandals is much, much better, and most of the time there is somone there. But If theres not? =P. I like to think I'm on the wiki around 14~/7. Admittedly, RT and Viper are on the 'wiki a lot, though.
 * I like to think I'm quite active on the 'wiki, and I think that I deserve it. I'm not here to convince you, I'm the candidate; Make your mind up about it. I cant tell you what to do. I'm not saying you should, I'm saying that you should make your mind up on what you think.

In short conclusion, I'm bored and needed somthing to do because I'd woken up at 6:30 and couldn't get back to sleep. -- <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 07:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ya know Warwick, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the wiki." There's a fine line between being assertive and tooting your own horn. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 07:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ... Huh? I dont get it, what have I said thats so offensive? --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 07:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say offensive. Boisterous, perhaps. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 07:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What did I say that was Boisterous? =| --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 07:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am currently Ursanway and am unable to reply satisfactorily. Perhaps you should reflect on your own statements. :D [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 07:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Em.. *Cough*changedstatements*cough*. I just realised how rude and arrogant they sounded =P. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 07:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I'm off to get ready. May be back in around 15 mins~. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 07:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "May be back"... is that a possible return, or bad grammar? :P --[[image:GEO-logo.png]]<font color="#237d00"> Jïörüjï Ðērākō.> <font color="#237d00">.cнаt^  14:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Possible return. --May on Laptop
 * That was me. (The above). --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr.) (EditCount) 15:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Uhm
Should I archive the talk? Its basically at 32kb.. =| -- <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr.) 20:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As no-one has posted saying no for 21 minutes (ehh) I'll archive it once it reaches 35kb. If. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr.) 20:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if archiving is a good idea <B>R</B><B>T</B> 20:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr.) 20:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, since evidently you're not going to give me an answer otherwise: Why? Why do you think its not wise to archive the talk? --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr.) 20:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Archiving is for putting away dead topics - everything here is still open and could make or break some decisions for the RfA -- Brains12 \ Talk 22:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I archive my talk in the middle of a conversation, if it reaches 32kb.. =P. --May on Laptop
 * Obey the spirit, not the word. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 12:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, lord Felix Omni. *Salute*. --May on Laptop
 * The above was me. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr.) 15:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please

 * This may seem a tad hypocritical of me, but no more spam on this page please, guys. We have my talk for that. also, night. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr.) 23:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Question
You claim your edits are good. How many of the total number of edits are actually yours? How do I know that you aren't just one person, and once you've fucked it up, decided to claim that the edits causing any negative stigma aren't yours? Second question is mostly hypothetical, I'm just interested in the response. Lord of all tyria 21:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC) &mdash;<font face="vivaldi" color="purple" size="4">♥May♥ 21:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I can say whatever I like to that, so you can't know if I'm telling the truth. thereby any answer that I give can't be trusted and will probably be ignored. Although in truth a lot of the positive edits have been mine. I've done over 500 mainspace edits which is garunteed, since I did most of the category project after I kicked my brother off of the account, which should give some view of it.
 * 2) And again, any answer that I give can't be trusted. You don't know it, and I have no way of proving it.
 * Right, Special:Editcount/Warwick. Vaguely how much of that is yours? I'm a relatively trusting person. Lord of all tyria 21:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the main is mine, about 25% of the talk, about 40-45% of the user talk, about 60% of the user. Oh, and the policies were made by me. &mdash;<font face="vivaldi" color="purple" size="4">♥May♥ 21:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Tyvm. Lord of all tyria 21:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and when did your brother stop contributing to the wiki? Lord of all tyria 21:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. 2 or 3 days before the creation of this RfA. &mdash;<font face="vivaldi" color="purple" size="4">♥May♥ 21:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Lulz
I broke the numbers xD ---Jamster--- 21:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See less spam pl0x. &mdash;<font face="vivaldi" color="purple" size="4">♥May♥ <font face="vivaldi" color="purple" size="4">Wick♥ 21:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically...
You want us to "forget" every bad contribution made by your account and only pay attention to the good ones? That's insulting to everyone here. If you really really cared about having a clean record, you'd make your own account. Everyone would be 100% sure that your edits were made by you, and that your account would never be used by your "brother" (or pet rabbit, or dog, or possibly a unicorn passing through the neighborhood) for malicious editing.

If you want a clean record and to be treated like your contributions weren't yours, it's the same as making a new account and immediately asking for sysophood. If you aren't even going to spend a few months making edits that everyone knows are yours, you don't care enough about the wiki to be trusted with tools that can prevent others from viewing and editing. Even if you went through "Warwick's" contribution list and laid claim to specific ones, I wouldn't be assuaged. I'd need to know precisely which edits are yours and which aren't. By contributing from that account, you make that knowledge impossible to attain. Don't expect to be promoted when you don't help others who are just trying to build trust in you.

If you want to be a sysop solely to help out the wiki, you won't mind taking steps to make sure your promotion brings no harm the wiki. Those steps would include making your own account and keeping the login information hidden from your family members. Only then could you be trusted enough (with basic account security) to begin building a foundation of solid edits and be considered for adminship. --Eliot Spitzer 14:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I dont have a clue who you are, and you're totally missing the point, and another thing is how would you find this page at all if you're a totally new account? Personally, I think that its a sock to somone, but meh, AGF.

I said nothing about you forgetting any negative contributions, except for the fact there are none. No truly negative ones. Theres useless ones, but no truly negative ones.

I take a lot of offense by the fact that you're being a prat and saying that my brother doesn't exist, and truly I dont think you exist then. I think you're a sock.

I've taken precautions, I've changed my password to lock my brother out of the account. I've done a lot of things on this account, and so really, dont vote until you actually know about it, so seriously, GTFO- You dont have a clue. &mdash;<font face="vivaldi" color="purple" size="4">♥May♥ <font face="vivaldi" color="purple" size="4">Wick♥ 14:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Truthfull, what you've jsut done is made an account then immediately went and said "You're an idiot" without knowing anything about the backstory. You have zero contributions apart from your vote on the RfA, which gives me the opinion that either:

I'm not saying you are, I'm just giving you my opinion. You're insulting me more then I'm insulting anyone. I've insulted no-one in this RfA. What would be the point of making a new account when I'd already locked my brother out of this one? &mdash;<font face="vivaldi" color="purple" size="4">♥May♥ <font face="vivaldi" color="purple" size="4">Wick♥ 14:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) You're a sock
 * 2) You're that vandal who proxy vandalised my page and are now vandalising.
 * May, simply because someone only recently made an account doesn't mean their opinion is valueless. Also, Eliot never said something like "You're an idiot". Quite frankly, you (May) are closer to breaking AGF (Not saying you are breaking it) then Eliot is. --[[Image:OrgXSignature.jpg]] 14:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, he said that my brother didnt exist, which is basically breaking AGF. &mdash;<font face="vivaldi" color="purple" size="4">♥May♥ <font face="vivaldi" color="purple" size="4">Wick♥ 15:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * He's not saying that your brother doesn't exist. He's saying that we can only know for certain if your trustworthy if you make another account. --[[Image:OrgXSignature.jpg]] 15:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

your account would never be used by your "brother" (or pet rabbit, or dog, or possibly a unicorn passing through the neighborhood) for malicious editing.
 * I call that AGF and sarcasm in a pretty vast level. Unicorn? Seriously. And shadow has a way to know that I'm trustworthy, if he remembers it. &mdash;<font face="vivaldi" color="purple" size="4">♥May♥ <font face="vivaldi" color="purple" size="4">Wick♥ 15:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's SARCASM. Meaning that he's not entirely sure about you. Also you've broking NPA agianst him already, quote: "GTFO" --[[Image:OrgXSignature.jpg]] 15:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Didn't personally attack in. In short I told him to go away. Thats got nothing to do with a personal attack. Stop misinterpruting things, org. &mdash;<font face="vivaldi" color="purple" size="4">♥May♥ <font face="vivaldi" color="purple" size="4">Wick♥ 15:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Correction, You rudely told him to get out. I consider that a personal attack. --[[Image:OrgXSignature.jpg]] 15:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And I consider it rudely telling him or her to get out. &mdash;<font face="vivaldi" color="purple" size="4">♥May♥ <font face="vivaldi" color="purple" size="4">Wick♥ 15:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

How would people know you aren't making the story up? We could AGF, but some people still would not feel comfortable with admin powers in your hands. Even if everything you say is true, that you have full control and are not your brother, I still do not believe you would make a good admin. You act like a animal backed into the corner, getting defensive when challenged, making attacks and your comments to me and others seem to ignore GW:YAV. Now I am assuming good faith that everything you said was true, still I oppose your promotion to admin based off of your attitude.-- 18:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I said nothing about you being invaluable, I asked who you are since I'd never seen you before. &mdash;<font face="vivaldi" color="purple" size="4">♥May♥ <font face="vivaldi" color="purple" size="4">Wick♥ 18:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

My Responses to the opposes
To Jedi: Your point is valid, and can be taken into account. But its been 2 weeks since I locked him out of the account, and it should give you some sort of idea what my contributions are like. I've revised a fair bit of the monster stub category, and finished my Unique Items project, as well as revising the mess-uped start I made. I've done a fair bit of reverting whenever any vandals have been there. What else is there to take into account, if not good intentions and reverting vandalism? Theres mainspace editing, but you dont need administrator tools for that. The administrator tools is mainly only for crime fighting, which is somthing what I like to think myself as quite decent in. I'm not being aggressive, but I'm saying that now you should have gotten some idea of what type of contributions I make. And on a point to that, I no longer share the account with my brother, as you know. Admin tools is sheerly "Crime Fighting Skeelz", and so has nothing to do with my maturity or any contributions, or even indeed if I have a sibling or not.

RT: You voted support in my brothers last RfA, and you knew that we shared an account. half of "The Community" trusts me. Its not you thats giving the tools, its Entropy. Methinks that you've got hidden intentions, since I know that its bull that the reason is that I share an account. Personally, I think that you're annoyed about the mafia game, but you claim you don't mind it because you were already dead. I think that also you consider it somthing of a challenge (Apparently, according to a book males do that), and don't want me to get adminship because you have it now. Just my opinion. I no longer share the account with my brother, and you know that. Admin tools is sheerly "Crime Fighting Skeelz", and so has nothing to do with my maturity or any contributions, or even indeed if I have a sibling or not.

Yikey: Thats a tad hypocritical of you, isn't it? You're immature at best most of the time. Maturity has nothing to do with it. Admin tools is sheerly "Crime Fighting Stuffz" for banning vandals and deleting spam.

Alari: I can't think of a reason against your vote, and I accept it fullheartedly, but I havn't seen you much, so I'm not sure if you know whats actually going on. I'm occasionally immature, but not much, and I'm not unpredictable (Well, IIRC (Was it RT?) somone said that all females are unpredictable). I dont see what you mean by confusing. Admin powers, as I have said repeatedly above, is sheerly "Crime Fighting Stuffz" for banning vandals and deleting spam.

Jamster: What you've said, and you know this, though you don't believe my brother exists, is a quote of somthing my brother has said. The RfA added was removed extremely soon after by me. I did not spam those talk pages, my brother did. Oh wait, you don't believe in my brother do you? While the talk page spamming had nothing to do with me, it wasn't negative in any way. Admittedly, it wasn't positive, but in no way was it negative. As far as I can see, there has only been 2 or 3 negative contributions, and I'm sure everyone has the odd slipup negative contribution. Admin tools is sheerly "Crime Fighting Skeelz", and so has nothing to do with my maturity or any contributions, or even indeed if I have a sibling or not.

Marco: I didn't get us both banned, my brother did. Actually, as I have read, apparently he was about to edit to say "I'm only kidding" and he was banned. I think thats pretty funny, sorry though =P. I do act immaturely occasionally, but not much, and most of it was my brother (Yeah, my typical excuse. You may not believe me, but its true), and you act immaturely quite a lot, and you're an administrator. I havn't begged for any supports, I've just debated with people. I irritated Isk8 because my router was being extremely crap, and thats no excuse, but eh. Stealing a Colossal Scimitar, even if it was me, has nothing to do with wiki-editing whatsoever. I've argued against all of the oppose votes, but wouldn't anyone? Most people would argue against anything that they can't see to be true. In any case, Admin tools is sheerly "Crime Fighting Skeelz", and so has nothing to do with my maturity or any contributions, or even indeed if I have a sibling or not.

Eliot: No comment.

Those are my opinions on the votes, and there you go. Go read through them. &mdash;<font face="vivaldi" color="purple" size="4">♥May♥ <font face="vivaldi" color="purple" size="4">Wick♥ 18:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yikey isn't requesting adminship - his immaturity here is irrelevant. And to be honest, those repeated mentions of sheer crime fighting skills just shows to me that you do not understand the administrative role on this wiki. It does require maturity and intelligence. -- Brains12 \ Talk 18:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the voters be as serious as the candidates? Zulu Inuoe 18:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Claiming an admin doesn't need maturity or quality contributions just moved my vote to opposed. Lord of all tyria 18:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The basis of the administrator tools is the fact that they have the ability to ban/delete. I never said that yikey was rfaing, I said that he was immature. Of course you need intelligence and a maturity to a certain point, but really administrator tools are just extention to that of a normal wiki user. They can ban and delete. Yes, you need a certain amount of maturity, and you may think that I dont understand the administrative role on the wiki, but I think that I do. On a general point, I've said it in a different way to what I meant. I do have maturity, and somtimes I lack it. By what I'd said its really Crime fighting skills. It has nothing to do, truthfully, with my maturity, and maturity is overrated. I've said the wrong thing, as I can see. You do need a certain level of maturity to be an admin, but it has nothing truthfully to do with your level of maturity. &mdash;<font face="vivaldi" color="purple" size="4">♥May♥ <font face="vivaldi" color="purple" size="4">Wick♥ 18:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an RfA though, not "Warwick versus the people of GuildWiki." The fact that this has become a case of you defending yourself from voters' accusations doesn't speak well of your chances. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 18:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It hasn't become Warwick Vs GuildWiki. If you think that, then you've got the wrong impression. And no, I truly don't think I'm going to become an admin. The community evidently dislikes me as a most part. I'm keeping it up in the nigh nonexistant chance that people decide to like me and trust me. &mdash;<font face="vivaldi" color="purple" size="4">♥May♥ <font face="vivaldi" color="purple" size="4">Wick♥ 18:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Decision
Warwick/May, your recent actions have convinced me that you are NOT ready for becoming a sysop. I have no personal qualms with you, but at this point in time I am not comfortable giving you admin tools. You can try again in a few months if you wish - as I've said earlier, I think that you could definitely become an admin someday. You have some of the qualities...persistence, dedication to a cause, general knowledge of Wikicode and formatting, (some) experience...but other aspects of your character disappoint me. For example, GW:AGF and GW:YAV - it is vitally important that the administrative team understands and abides by these policies. In a way, that can be even more destructive than a ban/delete spree. I am also slightly disturbed at the sheer volume of attention this RfA has gotten, not just from your responses but from the community at large. RfA's are a way for the people to show the bureaucrats what they think of a candidate (it is not solely about administrative prowess, although that should be a central theme). So far, what I'm seeing is a community divided, and both sides have some strong arguments that they are unwilling to budge on. This is far from unanimous or even a majority support in my eyes...

My decision is final and I won't be appealing it, but I will be happy to answer any questions or concerns you may have regarding the judgment nonetheless. (T/C) 19:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)