Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gobbleswoggler

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.


gobbleswoggler

[edit]

Final (1/12/2) Closed per WP:NOTNOW by Bradjamesbrown (talk) at 22:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

[edit]

gobbleswoggler (talk · contribs) – I think I am a good editor as I have edited football statistics as quickly and accurately as I can.I try to update as many statistics as I can a day. I most do Ipswich Town F.C. and the Lincolnshire and Shropshire football clubs as I have lived in both of these places. Gobbleswoggler (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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: Helping stop vandalism and making wikipedia a better place to visit.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Editing football stats because I like football
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?
A: Yes when the footballer appearances are one too many because people don't check them properly. In the future i will keep altering as I do now.
Additional optional questions from Gobbleswoggler
Number of question. Question
A:
Additional optional questions from Beeblebrox
5. You say you would be interested in "making Wikipedia a better place to visit" if you were an admin. What specific administrative actions would you take to that end?
A:
Additional opiton questions from Doc Quintana
6' What is your interpretation of IAR?
A

General comments

[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/gobbleswoggler before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Support His edits that I looked through look good. I'm willing to extend the benefit of the doubt. I do think more experience and interest in areas where admin tools are used would be beneficial in demonstarting a need and the expertise to use the tools wisely. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose Sorry, but as demonstrated by your non-answer of Q1 you do not yet have enough experience to be trusted with the tools as it seems as if you do not know what an admin's role is.   ArcAngel   (talk) (review) 18:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hi Gobbleswoggler, I'm afraid I don't think you are ready for adminship yet. Very few of your edits have an edit summary, and you seem to be altering a lot of information on living people without adding a source. Looking at the last time you used an edit summary you created an article for someone where we already had an article where their name was spelled correctly. Lack of an edit summary is especially problematic for admins because we need our admins to be able to communicate clearly with other Wikipedians, I would suggest you go to My Preferences, Editing and check the box Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Lack of references when adding information to articles on living people is a problem per wp:BLP, so while its great that you are updating these articles we really need you to start citing your sources for this information. Also you don't need to become an admin to start cleaning up vandalism on Wikipedia, you can start right now. So when you've been doing that for a little while and have demonstrated you can tell the difference between vandalism and good faith mistakes, and know which message to use from wp:WARN, have a read of wp:Rollback and come to me or one of the other admins who appoints Rollbackers and we will enable that on your account. ϢereSpielChequers 18:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, would like to see a bit more experience, also the lack of edit summaries is an issue. Cirt (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Looks like you saw the word 'administrator' and glommed on regardless. Plutonium27 (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Editing articles is great, and I would never try to discourage you from doing so, but that is all you do, you don't seem to have any experience in admin-related areas, and you don't seem to have any idea what an admin does or what you would do with the admin toolset. I strongly suggest you withdraw and file a new RFA when you have overcome these issues.Beeblebrox (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose WP:NOTNOW seems relevant. Your only edits seem to be to article space. You should have some experience discussing on talkpages when needed, with a Wikiproject connecting with others on a topic of interest, and on other wikipedia space helping out in admin areas. I don't see any reason why you would need the tools. There are a lot of new areas for you to try that don't involve the tools. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 19:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Not enough experience with the admin related portions of Wikipedia for me to be able to judge if this user can be trusted with the tools. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 19:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Nothing personal, you lack experience with conflicts in wikipedia. You will just get yourself in trouble when you use the admin tools incorrectly due to that lack of experience. You need to look at what admins do and decide what things you would like doing, And you need to look at how they do them and why they do them in one way or other way. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose VERY RARELY will someone find me opposing an Rfa, as I feel that each user should be given a chance with the tools, unless there is a blatant reason not to. This is one of those minimal occurrences that I see. With a little over 1,000 edits, and hardly any to the mainadminspace, I have to oppose here. I don't see many, if any, edits to AIV, AN, ANI as that's where you should be focusing if you're going to be a Sysop. Give it a few months, Wikipedia isn't going to go anywhere. You seem to be a very civil editor, and you would make a great asset to the Sysop team, with Admin Coaching. Having "spunk" and determination is great, but make sure that you know what you're getting yourself into and what tools are going to be handed to you before you file your next Rfa. Good luck!! :) DustiSPEAK!! 20:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you mean to say "hardly any edits to mainspace"? Because that's almost exclusively where they've edited.--Atlan (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    oops, corrected. Thank you. DustiSPEAK!! 21:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. WP:NOTNOW is appropriate here. You need more experience communicating and discussing with others in the Talk and Wikipedia spaces, a much greater usage of edit summaries, and a better knowledge and understanding of policy. Laurinavicius (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose WP:NOTNOW Much more experience needed in a variety of areas. (Good username :) ) Polargeo (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose notnow, snow, whatever. Şłџğģő 21:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Neutral because I prefer to assume that the candidate didn't meant to ignore the three standard questions. I will reconsider after reviewing them.--otherlleft 18:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral to avoid risking pile-on opposes. I feel that ϢereSpielChequers' comments are very apt - plus the fact that you did not read the instructions for creating your own nomination (including adding another optional question from yourself without a question) does not make me inclined to believe that you have a knowledge of the other "vital reading" that is required for an admin - that of the policies on Wikipedia. Thank you for your keenness, but I think this is a definite case of WP:NOTNOW -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidently, when you have answered questions 1-3 (plus any optional questions), I may change my mind, but unless I see clear evidence of an understanding of the role of an admin here, I cannot support. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, guys, he did answer the questions. They're right up there at the top of the page. He just didn't put them after the "A:" like we've come to expect. Useight (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ya got me, I didn't more than glance at that section. Taking the responses and the current number of opposes into consideration, I see no need to change my response, though.--otherlleft 19:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have fixed this for the candidate as I also missed his answers... Feel free to revert if you think it necessary to illustrate the candidates lack of experience with RFA... -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 19:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, RP459! It's strange how we missed them because they weren't next to the "A:" bit! Like Otherlleft, I see no need to move from this section. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gobbleswoggler&oldid=1136073346"