GuildWiki:Requests for adminship/Warwick (7)

=== Warwick (talk &bull; contribs &bull; edit count &bull; RFA page) ===

Prowick is a pro at all things wiki. <3 I suppose I need to write up a more convincing reason. Slurry 21:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I know Warwick has been around for a long time. At least a year. And based on her contribs, she is generally a very helpful member, reverts vandalism, etc.
 * From talking to her, it is easy to tell she is well-versed, and knows most everything that should be known.
 * I'd say around 99% (if not 100%) of the time on the wiki she is serious, and acts professionally. She exemplifies the qualities that all admins should have.
 * She is definitely a friendly and patient person. She always assumes good faith and attempts to help however possible.
 * She's definitely improved attitude-wise and maturity-wise (from what I've observed) over the past month(s) and is admin-material.


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
 * Originally, I was intending to decline this nomination. But with the votes looking the way they are, and what with Nova declaring his support and Shadow choosing to remain neutral, I think I'll accept. :) &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 16:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Instructions
''Please summarize the candidate's qualifications below. Add your summary as a brief bullet-point and leave your signature. Then go to the talkpage and explain your points in more detail.''

'' If you agree with a user's point, please also add your signature beneath their bullet. To add a rebuttal to another's point, indent and add another brief bullet. Then discuss on the talkpage. Other users that also disagree should sign below the rebuttal. ''

''The "General" bullets are intended for users who wish to express their opinions but do not have a particular quality to explain - simply add your brief summary bullet and signature below them. Nevertheless, elaboration of your stance on the talkpage is still appreciated.''

Discussions, more elaboration on a point, lengthy counter-arguments, etc. should be directed to the talkpage.

Supporting qualities

 * Long standing member of the community
 * Knowledgeable about policy/precedent/etc
 * Knows the general code of conduct for adminship, and what is involved in being an Admin
 * Friendly to the newer people, has patience with people whilst they're testing out
 * Energetic and enthusiastic, and concerned about the state of the wiki
 * (list specific supporting qualities here)

Opposing qualities

 * Recent inactivity
 * Rocky history
 * Known to make rash decisions
 * A bit of a drama/attention magnet
 * (list specific opposing qualities here)

Neutral/Double-edged qualities

 * No need for admins at present
 * (list specific neutral qualities here)

Community Support
''Please place your signature to indicate your support or non-support. Do not argue. Also realize that this is in no way influential towards the other merits of the candidate, just a gauge of public support.''

I support Warwick's candidacy.

 * 1) --◄mendel► 00:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash;  Nova  [[Image:Neo-NovaSmall.jpg]] &mdash;  (contribs) 22:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Cress Arvein [[Image:Cress sig.JPG]]
 * 4) [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 01:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Alright /giveup Random Time  18:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6)  &not; Wizårdbõÿ777  ( talk ) 22:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) your sig here

I oppose Warwick's candidacy.

 * 1) Viruzzz 23:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) your sig here

I am neutral/undecided.

 * 1)  Shadowcrest  00:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  02:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) not again --[[Image:Progger.png]] - talk 21:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) o lawd [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 17:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) your sig here