Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Attacked by everybody

I don't know if this page has always been this way, but it seems to have turned into a page where people attack each other. I just made a request for adminship. I thought it would be nice to serve wikipedia on a higher level. I had no idea that I would be attacked by everybody and I wouldn't have applied for this privilage if I had that idea. I assumed that wikipedians wouldn't be low enough to turn a "request to better serve wikipedia" into an "accuse greenmountain" forum. Green Mountain 19:38, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

With the exception of the current debate, this page has been fairly cordial. Most people who are nominated are accepted, I think, and when they aren't, it's usually a pretty clear consensus not to. Aside from the de-admining Cunc debate, there's been very little vitriol that I've seen before the current discussion regarding you. You and your brother may be different people, but you must be able to understand why the concerns being presented are a major issue that can't be simply ignored. Perhaps you could provide proof that you are a different individual (e.g. by getting your brother to make edits from one computer while you do the same at another in a different location, like a public library -- a developer could confirm that both accounts were being used from a different computer, and that might mollify some people, though it wouldn't be foolproof). Tuf-Kat 21:36, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)

Vitriol: "fierce hate and anger expressed through severe criticism". I can't find any comments that could be conceived as vitriolic? I'd suggest waiting 5 months and then nominating yourself again. Provided, of course, that noone else nominates you in the mean time. --snoyes 21:55, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, currently, the majority of those who expressed opinions on the matter, supported the request, so I don't see why I would need to wait. I was just commenting on the excessive conflict that has come out of this simple request. Anyway, it isn't fair that since I have a brother who uses the same computer that I should be banned. Green Mountain 22:17, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Nobody is talking about banning you. Morwen 22:27, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)

Nobody^except Wik

, but one person isn't enough to ban someone (with the possible exception of Jimbo the Great). Κσυπ Cyp 00:36, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"one person isn't enough to ban someone" - least of all Wik the human pinata. -- Finlay McWalter 00:41, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

ROFL Green Mountain 00:45, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)