- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Gobbleswoggler
- Final (0/3/0); Procedurally closed by Courcelles (talk) at 20:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC) to make life easier on the RFX report. (Note that this is several months after the last !vote)[reply]
Nomination
gobbleswoggler (talk · contribs) – I believe I am a good editor. Gobbleswoggler (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A:
Stopping vandalism
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A:
I edit football stats as often as i can. I admit that i do forget to put an edit summary quite a bit but if this succeeds than i will never forget again!
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
yes because people are quite rude at me not providing an edit summary but that has changed recently as i have become more experience
- A:
General comments
- Links for gobbleswoggler: Gobbleswoggler (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for gobbleswoggler can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/gobbleswoggler before commenting.
Discussion
Support
Oppose
- Oppose - HI, with regard to the edit summaries, it would probably be best if you were to get used to always making them before you become an admin. The same goes for one or two other tasks, such as regularly looking at your talk page and taking part in discussions. Nobobody has been rude to you - there have been plenty of friendly requests on your talk page to conform to the way some things are done on Wikipedia, but if you choose to ignore them, then the tone of the requests will become stricter, but not ruder. The admin tools will require you not only to fight vandalism, but also to do many other operations that require an acute sense of good judgement. I don't think you have this yet, and you probably need to get a lot more experience before becoming an admin, so I would suggest that we all agree to close this second request as per WP:SNOW and WP:NOTNOW, and give you a chance to apply again in several months time.--Kudpung (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose - little or no content creation. That means no evidence of whether he is familiar with creating content or not. Kayau Voting IS evil 05:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: little experience of editing to date; user does not appear to read, or respond to comments on, their talk page. (To gobbleswoggler: your talk page is at User talk:gobbleswoggler: please read it and respond to the comments there!) -- The Anome (talk) 09:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
as i do my best to keep wikipedia the number one encyclopaedia.
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.