Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/68.39.174.238
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
8.39.174.238's edit stats using "wannabe Kate" tool as of 03:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC):
User:68.39.174.238
run at Mon Mar 10 03:24:22 2008 GMT
Category talk: 3
Category: 20
Help: 2
Image talk: 45
Image: 373
Mainspace 12170
MediaWiki talk: 12
Portal talk: 8
Portal: 130
Talk: 1288
Template talk: 105
Template: 733
User talk: 2860
User: 628
Wikipedia talk: 419
Wikipedia: 3056
avg edits per page 1.76
earliest 01:21, 26 September 2005
number of unique pages 12396
total 21852
2005/9 21
2005/10 673
2005/11 1630
2005/12 2246
2006/1 1597
2006/2 1540
2006/3 1211
2006/4 1359
2006/5 923
2006/6 799
2006/7 692
2006/8 799
2006/9 561
2006/10 640
2006/11 646
2006/12 892
2007/1 734
2007/2 467
2007/3 139
2007/4 118
2007/5 39
2007/6 413
2007/7 696
2007/8 453
2007/9 402
2007/10 219
2007/11 228
2007/12 492
2008/1 817
2008/2 354
2008/3 52
[edit] Users without accounts cannot be administrators
As far as I am aware, MediaWiki has no mechanism for this. (It's a bad idea, for obvious reasons.) Uncle G 20:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's not the proposal, If I understood well. 220.135.4.212 (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The proposal it to give adminship to an ACCOUNT controled by 68.39.174.238
The proposal is to give adminship to an ACCOUNT controled by the nominated 68.39.174.238. Accordingly, I restore the page with: a/better presentation ; b/irrevelant vote move in neutral
- to user:Nsk92
- Read the request page fully first instead to revert IP just because they are IP, and ask yourself why nobody reverted me (an IP) in all a week. I fully explained my edit: the proposal is not to give adminship to an IP, but to an account. Accordingly : the 3 opposing vote are irrevelant (read them) -> move in neutral. 220.135.4.212 (talk) 04:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I did not revert you because you are an IP but because your edit was inappropriate. I would have done the same if such an edit was done by a registered user. I did read your explanation before reverting. However, what you think about other people's votes being erroneous, irrelevants, etc, does not matter. Even if you are absolutely correct about this (and I have no position about this myself; as you may note I myself did not vote), you still cannot change other people's recorded votes yourself. You need to persuade these people that their votes were erroneous/irrelevant and they can then change their votes themselves. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 09:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- They voted without understanding that details of the RFA, and prior to User68 accepting the the RFA. It isn't live; I think the votes where out of process, so I have removed them. This page has been deleted twice; My_Cat_inn (talk · contribs) nominated User68 in January 2006, and 149.151.192.145 (talk · contribs) nominated User68 in June 2006. I would not object if someone requested this to be speedy deleted, but until that happens, User68 deserves a clean slate if they do accept. John Vandenberg (talk) 10:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I still don't like it. If the proposal has changed, I think it needs to be relisted separately. Otherwise the situation looks very confusing. Nsk92 (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- It hasnt been listed yet, as far as I know: the live history of this page doesn't include User68 accepting. John Vandenberg (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I still don't like it. If the proposal has changed, I think it needs to be relisted separately. Otherwise the situation looks very confusing. Nsk92 (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- They voted without understanding that details of the RFA, and prior to User68 accepting the the RFA. It isn't live; I think the votes where out of process, so I have removed them. This page has been deleted twice; My_Cat_inn (talk · contribs) nominated User68 in January 2006, and 149.151.192.145 (talk · contribs) nominated User68 in June 2006. I would not object if someone requested this to be speedy deleted, but until that happens, User68 deserves a clean slate if they do accept. John Vandenberg (talk) 10:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- The proposal have not been change, from what I know, I changed nothing : I just reworded it to put an understandable text. 220.135.4.212 (talk) 218.170.137.112 (talk) 06:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I didnt mean to imply you had changed it; the proposal has been expanded since the nomination by False Prophet (talk · contribs), as I have clarified how it can be achieved. John Vandenberg (talk) 07:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I did not revert you because you are an IP but because your edit was inappropriate. I would have done the same if such an edit was done by a registered user. I did read your explanation before reverting. However, what you think about other people's votes being erroneous, irrelevants, etc, does not matter. Even if you are absolutely correct about this (and I have no position about this myself; as you may note I myself did not vote), you still cannot change other people's recorded votes yourself. You need to persuade these people that their votes were erroneous/irrelevant and they can then change their votes themselves. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 09:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
