GuildWiki talk:Requests for adminship/Warwick (3)

What am i meant to do? Archive this into the Former Nominations? How do i do that? --Warwick (Talk) (Contr.) 17:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 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  <font color="#4682b4">[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)