Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gobbleswoggler 2


 * ''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)

Nomination
– I believe I am a good editor. Gobbleswoggler (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

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:
 * 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.''

Oppose

 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) 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)

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.