User talk:Gobbleswoggler

Archives

Your talk page has been archived

Your talk page has been archived. Kayau Voting IS evil 11:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maturity

This is a follow-up of this discussion.
I'd like to think I'm an extremely patient person; however, I don't like to be made fun of. I offered to adopt you, in order to help you to better understand the use of CSD tags and you accepted; however, you keep on tagging articles, as can easily be seen just taking a cursory look at your contributions.
I think there's a serious maturity issue, here: when you agree to something, you should do it, even if, later, you find yourself thinking it's a drag; so I'm terminating this adoption as of now. Clearly, you're always welcome on my talk page, if you need any help. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 12:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption and more

Regarding this request, please keep in mind that adoption is much more about you as the person being adopted than it is about the adopter. You must display a willingness to accept input from others and act on it. I can't speak for anyone else, but it looks to me like you have a very difficult time with this. For example, it has taken many, many requests to get you to stop putting CSD tags on articles. From there, you moved on to new articles, where you have inappropriately removed a new article template, such as these:

In all four of those cases, all you did was remove the {{New unreviewed article}} template; you didn't actually review the article, or if you did, you did so incorrectly. For example, just looking specifically at the last one, when you removed the template, what you left behind was an article that started out with New article name, which shows you aren't really familiar with the purpose of the template. In addition, Omnis Network doesn't appear to meet any criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia, but of course that's a different story. I would expect any new article reviewer to either improve the article so that it appears to meet criteria, or else to nominate it for deletion (either WP:CSD, WP:PROD, or WP:AFD, as appropriate).

So, in summary, the best advice you can follow around here is the advice you've gotten most frequently since you showed up: look at what other people are doing and learn how Wikipedia works. That is the best way to contribute. Frank | talk 14:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red links

Not all red links need to be removed. Please read Wikipedia:Red link. Frank | talk 00:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Strange comment"

Hi. The "strange comment" you just removed from this talk page appears to have been in response to a warning you gave to that IP ~~editor~~ (it could have been a different editor) on June 5 - see User talk:117.201.51.135. As a suggestion, if you get replies on your Talk page and you don't know what they're about, it can often be helpful to check the person's Talk page - responses often come in very late, and I often have to check things myself, because I can't always remember who I've been talking to. And having checked, I see that IP did indeed edit the article "Tongue" and you reverted his edit as vandalism, but it clearly wasn't vandalism - you really do need to be careful when you mark other people's edits as vandalism. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption?

Umm..I'd be happy to adopt you but you have 13,241 edits, much more then the 2,604 I have. May I ask why you want to be adopted first? Derild 49 21 ☼ 18:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been advised to be adopted to improve my tagging pages skills.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have read through some of your past conflicts with other users and adopters. As you commonly mention that you are only 12, I will now mention I am only 13. CSD is a tricky topic and you will see on my talk page two of taggins were also wrong. However, CSD is a tool to help get rid of the articles that are obviously not needed and should have almost no reason to keep. I need to know what you have read and do know about CSD tagging, what articles you have read and questions you have. However, I am willing to adopt you! :) Derild 49 21 ☼ 18:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read on how to tag pages more accurately.Would you consider nominating me for adminship?,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, can you please knock it off with the adminship? Please? Don't even think about it for at least a year and a couple DYKs. Thank you. Tommy! [message] 18:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gobble, you agreed not to pursue RFA for one year here [5]. Trying to get someone to nominate you is a violation of the spirit if not the letter of that promise. You need to get it through your head: adminship is not a trophy and with the number of warnings you have gotten lately you have zero chance of attaining it anytime in the next six months to a year anyway. Given your appalling lack of good judgement I have revoked your reviewer and rollback permissions. You are headed away from adminship, not towards it, with the course you are plotting for yourself. The community is a little more tolerant of incompetence when it comes from such a young person, but there comes a point when a user is doing more harm than good and needs to be shown the door. Wise up and actually listen to all the good advice that has been given to you on this page or you will find yourself at that point in the near future. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above easily. You have agreed to back off from RFA for a year. Even if you did not, I would still not nominate you because I know after those 4 RFA's the community would quickly close the RFA with a case of WP:NOTNOW (again). Think about it this way, you are once again a new user trying to help out on Wikipedia. Would you go around tagging articlesfor CSD this recently? Would you run for adminship that recently. The obvious answers are no and no. For now read through WP:CSD and User:SoWhy/Ten Commandments for Speedy Deletion THOROUGHLY. I'm sure others have tried this method but I see no other way forward until you know the criteria inside out. Other articles to read include User:SoWhy/Common A7 mistakes, Wikipedia:Field guide to proper speedy deletion and Wikipedia:Concerns about Speedy Deleters. As for RFA, Beeblebrox is right, for the next year you need to concentrate on getting taggings right, stop bothering other for nominations and demonstrate you understand the core policies and that WP:Adminship is not a trophy. I have agreed to adopt and I will, but remember what frank has stated above, "adoption is much more about you as the person being adopted than it is about the adopter. You must display a willingness to accept input from others and act on it." Derild 49 21 ☼ 19:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Wikipedia career

I want to add more to the discussions above, since you continue to seem focused on adminship. What's said above is true: you are moving further away from it with each phase of your time here. Asking someone to nominate you shows an appalling lack of knowledge of how Wikipedia works. In addition, you seem to think the only thing between you and adminship is that you've tagged articles at CSD incorrectly. Nothing can be further from the truth; that is simply one item on the list:

You aren't reviewing new articles correctly (see above)
You're not participating in very many community-related items such as AIV and AFD
Your participation in WP:AIV is hit-or-miss; plenty of your AIV reports in the last two months were declined
Your CSD tagging problems are documented in your talk archives
You don't appear to know how to check user contribution histories or article histories
You have only a passing knowledge of what a diff is or how to properly link one
You have a major case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT
You also have a pretty scorching case of WP:EDITCOUNTITIS
You make edits without really checking what's going on, for example this one from just 30 minutes ago, with the edit summary "removed name" (on Fulham Academy). Perhaps you thought that removing the name Wayne Brown from that article was useful because it pointed to a disambiguation page, or perhaps because the likely Wayne Brown being referred to (Wayne Brown (midfielder) no longer plays for Fulham. If it's the former, you should have linked to the correct one. If it's the latter, you could have moved his name to the "now playing elsewhere" section of the article.

In short, it seems like every one of your choices regarding how to act around here is the exact opposite of what the community expects from its contributors. Until you get those things right, there's no point in discussing advanced privileges. You asked me recently if I think you're doing well for a 12-year-old. The short, direct answer is "no". I have nothing against 12-year-olds (I've raised several myself :-) ) but you're not distinguishing yourself by your behavior, regardless of age. Put it this way: if you were an adult, and didn't have the obvious problem of being only a kid (sorry if that sounds condescending), you would likely have already been blocked, possibly indefinitely. The fact that you claim to be 12 is granting you some additional leeway (also noted above) but that won't last forever either.

Right now, what's going on is you are bringing attention to yourself in a negative way. You have at least three editors that I have seen on your talk page recently who appear to be going through every one of your contributions with a fine-toothed comb to see if you're making mistakes. That is not the kind of attention you want or need, and it is likely to shorten your time around here if it doesn't stop soon. Frank | talk 20:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gobbleswoggler has once made himself 'famous' by doing a couple of failed RfAs. Since then he has been a helpdesk 'regular'. He has often asked whether he has done something wrong (though he usually does something wrong before asking). I think he is acting in good faith, only his mistakes in judgement has led to some misunderstanding. As long as he is more 'wiki-educated' I believe he can become a much better editor than he is now. BTW I'm 12 too. Kayau Voting IS evil 09:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

Why do you consider this vandalism? Have you read the book? Frank | talk 20:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was because it had the word bitch in it and I didn't know it said that in the book.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it says that in the book or not. But if you read the entire section it appears in, it doesn't seem so unreasonable given that she apparently killed Bellatrix in that fight. Whether or not the edit belongs in the article is another question, but it isn't vandalism and shouldn't be marked as such. Frank | talk 21:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, it is in the book and that is an example of when to use Undo instead of marking it as vandalism. Derild 49 21 ☼ 22:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, a swear word does not mean vandalism, part of the AGF guideline. Thanks Tommy! [message] 22:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And on another point, not everything that breaks the rules is "vandalism" - vandalism is only when something is done in bad faith. I know it can be hard to tell sometimes, and I've got it wrong a few times myself, but it really is essential to assume good faith and not throw vandalism accusations at every edit that isn't perfect. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another "vandalism" problem

You just gave an IP a final warning (having only given them a level 2 previously) for this. Firstly, it's debatable whether it's vandalism at all (the editor may just be incorrect, but honest in their opinion). But even if it is vandalism, it's nowhere near a sufficiently egregious offence to bypass the standard 1-4 levels of warnings. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll adopt you.

I believe you're better off with a fellow 12-year-old as an adopter than a grown-up who cannot tolerate kids acting in a silly way. So I decided to send an adopt offer. Kayau Voting IS evil 09:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Kayau, if you look on my talk page and on the thread above called Adoption? you'll you that I've agreed to adopt Gobbleswoggler. Now it's just up to him/her to decide who to have as an adopter. Derild 49 21 ☼ 12:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is wrong, because many people can have two adopters at the same time. For example, User:Mono and I have a common adoptee. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, really? I did not know that... So if Gobbleswoggler agrees should we do the same thing and share an adoptee? Derild 49 21 ☼ 12:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks, I think it's very good of both of you to offer adoption - and I think if you're careful, you could be quite complementary to each other. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of the "ancient proverb": Man with one watch is always sure what time it is. Man with two watches is never sure. Frank | talk 14:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm pretty sure we're smarter than watches and if we give out conflicting advice we can also ask for a third opinion. Derild 49 21 ☼ 14:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not the point; the last thing Gobbleswoggler needs is a discussion about which instruction is correct. GS needs clear, concise, easy-to-understand (and implement!) guidance at all times. Ambiguity of any sort will make things worse. Frank | talk 14:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're right and I suppose the only way forward would be for Gobbleswoggler to choose his adopter. Unless you have something else in mind? Derild 49 21 ☼ 15:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, yes, I think Frank is right. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first order of business is for GS to agree to adoption. It's far from clear this will actually happen. Second is for GS to pick an adopter. After that, we'll see. I think it would be great for GS to spend time as an adoptee of one person, say a month or three, and then move to another adopter. Each could work on one or two specific areas of concern. Frank | talk 15:12, 2 August

Hmm... that seems that a great idea! Now let's just wai and see what GS agrees to then. Derild 49 21 ☼ 15:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol isn't easy - not even for an old sod like me

One of the problems with New Page Patrol is that there are undoubtedly a bunch of kids that think it's a game. On the other hand, there's a bunch of kids who try very hard to take things seriously, but either they lack the confidence or the knowledge to get it right. I think Gobbleswoggler is in the second group. I helped him a lot a while back, but I do think he needs to concentrate more on the stuff he knows more about, such as footy, and leave the page patrolling up to others who have a bit more experience and sound judgement. There is always a danger that one day he might tread on the wrong toes and get himself blocked forever. Let's not forget that this is after all an encyclopedia, and there's an even bigger bunch of top knobs, Lords, Ladies, famous people, and one heck of a load of university professors who write stuff on here. I'm one of of those grumpy old professor sods, but I have had Gobbles on my watch list for a long time, and like to think I can jump in with a bit of help and advice when he needs it. Like now. And if anyone else needs any help before they step in the caca, they are welcome to come and sit in my talk page, grab a coke or a coffee, and have a natter. - but I'd love to see all these 12 & 13 year olds taking on some responsibility, and helping each other. None of you is going to make it to adminship yet - hmm.. they probably wouldn't even let me be one, but one of the days guys, you're going to have a couple of those shiny little Good Article icons on your page, and that's worth more than a million unreflected drive-by taggings!--Kudpung (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for the great lecture Kudpung! ;) Derild 49 21 ☼ 14:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, I thought s** refers to a difficulty, not a person doing it. :P Thanks for the advice: it applies for me too. :) When I do NPP nowadays I only CSD blatant vandalism or copyright violation, because I'm too scared to risk another mistake. Everything else goes to AfD, which is not a pain in the neck because it's automated with Kissle. :D Kayau Voting IS evil 15:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adopting

Ok, GS(Gobbleswoggler) has agreed for me to adopt him as shown on my talk page. I'll be glad for everyone to have some input if I have not adressed something appropriately. Now, GS, what questions and concerns do you have that you would like to have answered and addressed? After that I will first direct you along article building and then slowly edge you towards some of the behind the scenes work which you are having major troubles in. Before that, please do not try and tag any articles or fight any vandalism unless the vandalism is plain and clear like if someone goes on a biography page and types "I HATE THIS PERSON" etc.. Ok? Derild 49 21 ☼ 16:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok,first of all;how do you edit and stylize your signiture?,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, unexpected question. To change your sig around go to "my preferences" on the top righish area. Under the user profile go down to the signature section and enter the code for your sig. Then check the "Treat the above as wiki markup." box. Now, I can't explain how to change the color and add cool designs, so just visit this page! Make sure to remember the don't of signatures. Good luck! If you have any troubles just respond here. Derild 49 21 ☼ 16:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good job but be careful with STiki as not everything is neccassarily vandalism. Now, it seems that you also like association football! Me too! So why not find a stub and get it to start class for now? A list of stubs can be found here. Derild 49 21 ☼ 14:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't know if you've seen the discussion yet, but Kayua has informed me the creator of Stiki has been blocked indefinitely so it will go out of date soon. Try this instead. And in response to your question, find a stub you are interested with the link I provided and bring it up to a start class. Look here for the difference between stub and start. Derild 49 21 ☼ 14:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A "start" class is one class above a stub. A stub is very short with little or no refs. A start has a one or two section with a few sentences each that are cited. stub and a start. As for the anti vandal tool, just put

importScript('User:Lupin/recent2.js');

into your monobook or vector page depending on which skin you use. To check, go to My preferences/appearance/skin and check which skin you're using. Derild 49 21 ☼ 15:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...are you useing internet exploerer cause it might mot work with that. Also, trying taking the code off User:Gobbleswoggler/vector.css and the adding it in User:Gobbleswoggler/vector.js after deleting "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. See the Terms of Use for details. Edit summary (Briefly describe the changes you have made) ". Then follow the instructions on the top of the page to bypass you cache. Derild 49 21 ☼ 15:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: STiki - see User talk:West.andrew.g#Hello. That doesn't look like he's been kicked out, just temporarily blocked for a technical reason with a request to contact ArbCom. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you bypass your cache yet? Derild 49 21 ☼ 15:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it still doesn't work then the only thing is that it might not work with Chrome. You can try it with your monobook skin instead. I've used the tool once with Firefox and monobook and it was fine for me. Derild 49 21 ☼ 15:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So far

So far good job on vandalism remember to please be careful. If you can't tell if something is vandlism or a good-faith edit written badly, just undo it and don't apply a warning. Also, for edits like this and this it is better to warn using these since it removed content and didn't add vandalism. Derild 49 21 ☼ 15:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, I see that you have started to fix typos as well. Try to fix the typos that are within articles. Some users don'e like people editing their userpage without permission and it won't make a difference if a word is spelled wrong in an AFD as long as everyone knows what it means. Derild 49 21 ☼ 16:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide the links to the RFAs? Derild 49 21 ☼ 16:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To change the title, just go to the page you want to change, click on move and paste

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/gobbleswoggler 3

into the move box. Derild 49 21 ☼ 16:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just say that I think changing other people's spelling anywhere other than in article space is a definite no-no! People will feel they're being policed if you change their Talk page or RfA etc spellings, and you should generally never change a User page at all (unless to do something like revert blatant vandalism or personal attacks). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per Frank here Gobbles, would you mind keeping conversations and questions here to have it in one place? I have this watchlisted so don't use talkback templates either. Thanks! Derild 49 21 ☼ 16:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously please try to listen to the advice from Boing!. It's only a matter of time before edits like this [6] get someone angry with you.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and just one more suggestion (well two) - 1) before you head off in yet another direction, check with your mentor first and ask whether you should be doing it and how to go about it, and 2) Really, really, keep discussions in one place - there are other people wishing you well and keeping a friendly eye on your progress, and in general it can seriously annoy people if you try to carry on one single conversation over two different Talk pages. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfAs (again)

I suppose I should be pleased that you are going back and looking over your previous RfAs, as has been suggested. This bit about renaming them was probably unnecessary but since you were given advice to do so, I've stepped in and done it. First of all, the two pages you thought had the same name did not (they can't). One had your username capitalized, and one did not. They were different page names. Second, when you made the move, you chose the wrong one to move because that put them out of order. I have taken care of it; here is a list of all of them, in order:

In addition, I updated the lists at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological) and Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies/G so the links are correct. Frank | talk 17:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the order is still wrong, and Gobbleswoggler 3 is the second one - it was started on Feb 12 (the day after the first one), but the closing admin comment wasn't until June (commented "Note that this is several months after the last !vote"). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grrr, you're right. But going by the closing date, it's correct; which way do you think we should let it settle? Frank | talk 18:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should go by the starting date, as that's the way they would normally be numbered - I'd offer to help, but not being able to move without redirects lets me off the hook ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've switched them. No idea what to do with the chronological list though. I guess a note at the bottom. Go for it :-) Frank | talk 18:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a think in the morning - I'm losing the will to live right now ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smelling pistake

Careful, you just changed links to a user page to a a red link [7]. Nev1 (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For crying out loud!

Will you LISTEN to what people are saying to you - and STOP changing other people's spelling in user and talk pages! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption

Gobbles, you've done it again. This recent edit ("Correcting spelling: alltime->all-time") was NOT a spelling error. You changed a word in a URL from http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/ to http://boxofficemojo.com/all-time/world/. Please click the those two links and see what your "spelling correction" did. And please start listening to all the advice you're being given. You have now crossed the line into WP:DISRUPTION. The next step will be for you to be blocked for it. Frank | talk 21:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another error

This "correction" created a redirect. Vermillion, South Dakota is a real place; despite the fact that the color is spelled vermilion, the place is not. Frank | talk 21:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enough was enough a long time ago

And now you are blocked for six months for gross incompetence. You do not seem to have the abilities needed to edit in an environment like this, and no amount of advice or guidance seems to help. Perhaps in six months you will have gained some perspective and maturity. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gobbles block

Sigh. Gobbles is yet to get used to how we work here. However, I believe that his latest clowning around was due to not checking the 'ignore pages outside the article namespace' box in AVT. When I told Derild he should use AVT I mean the filter recent changes feature, not the spellcheck... sigh. He probably thinks the tool is a person who can live an think. I just hope he is more mature when the block expires, and that his block may be shortened where possible. Kayau Voting IS evil 05:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If and when he's back, I'd suggest he use no automated tools whatsoever, as he seems to be incapable of applying any judgment to what they tell him. He needs to learn how to do actual grunt work the slow way, using his brain. So if he wants to do anti-vandal work, for example, he should use only the recent changes page, and check them manually. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gobbleswoggler (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didn't mean to cause any disruption.I'll be the first to admit that i have made some terrible mistakes.I didn't realising i was breaking links and correcting user names.I'll admit i should have been more careful.I was really upset when I found out I was blocked.I understand why I have been blocked but i think 6 months is far too long.As you can probably tell,i was really good at updating footballers goals and appearances.But being as it hasn't being the football season as of lately,I have being trying different things.The football season starts this Saturday and that is what I would do for the next year.Without being able to edit,the summer holidays will be boring for me as i am 12.Once again sorry for any inconvenience and if i had my account unblocked,i would be extra careful.

Decline reason:

Your intent isn't in question. Your competence is -- and you've demonstrated a lack. Six months is a long time when you're 12; perhaps by 2011, you'll have gained sufficient maturity to work with the Wikipedia community rather than against it. PS: We don't care if you're bored. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I can't do anything about the block myself, but here's a comment - I don't think you have yet grasped the main thing you are doing wrong. It's not specific mistakes, like the spelling corrections. I think there's one big overall mistake that you keep repeating, and if I were an admin considering an unblock, I'd need to feel that you had properly understood what it was and were committed to rectifying it. So, can you work out what I'm talking about? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it also because of my repetitive asking to be an administrator or reverting vandalism and warning the user when it was just a good faith edit not vandalism.And because it am tagging pages using the wrong criteria?Gobbles (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly: not once or twice, but because you wouldn't stop after being warned and make even more mistakes. Kayau Voting IS evil 09:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it's not specific mistakes that I'm thinking of. But Kayau is on to it - your big and repeated mistake is NOT LISTENING! And that's the over-arching problem that dwarfs any of the specifics. You were told about your bad taggings, yet you ignored us and carried on. You were told about dropping your admin obsession, yet you ignored us and carried on. You were warned about your bad vandalism warnings, yet you ignored us and carried on. You were warned about your bad spelling corrections, yet you ignored us and carried on. You don't listen until you are physically stopped, and even then you don't really listen - you only start begging and pretending you'll change. Anyway, it's not up to me to re-evaluate your block, or to set conditions for lifting it - I just hope these words will help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to 'officially' review the unblock request above, but personally I think that a few months break will do you good. I am indeed worried by the way many users point out your almost obsessed with Wikipedia, and the fact you have described it as your life, and only source of amusement during the summer holidays, is a bit worrying. I would assume this could be the reason you have gotten into trouble, as your enthusiasm may have made your mind over-ride the warnings you were getting to the point your editing became disruptive. (I know of other editors who had the same general issue.) I would suggest you take this time away and find some other hobbies to enjoy, then by the time your block expires you may be able to put editing Wikipedia into perspective and take it alot slower, and thus avoid mistakes. I hope you enjoy the remainder of your summer holiday, and the upcoming football season. As a summary: Take the time to reflect on why you were blocked, and to adopt a calmer approach to Wikipedia editing, then when you return in a few months you should be able to avoid the same mistakes. --Taelus (Talk) 09:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to reviewing admin - I'm an involved admin so I'm not touching this one, but I will comment: I think any consideration of an unblock should require that Gobbles avoid the use of any automated tool or user right whatsoever. I'm thinking in particular of AVT, Twinkle, and Rollback, but those are not meant to be an all-inclusive list. I mean any. This opinion applies whether an unblock is considered now, a few months, or 5 months and 29 days. Gobbles' biggest problem - as noted above - is lack of demonstrated ability to listen to any advice. If allowed to return to editing, Gobbles should be kept on a short leash. In addition, the note above about "I'll be extra careful" is not the first (or even third) time we've heard this; diffs available on request. Frank | talk 12:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:RESTRICTIONS? Kayau Voting IS evil 12:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that page isn't only for cases involving ArbCom, but still, I don't think we need to get ArbCom involved and we don't need to make it complicated. Frank | talk 12:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ugghh just came back on and did not except something like this to happen. Gobbles, we know you're trying to get better but that's just clearly not enough. When I said work on football stubs I felt that was the best way to start; on something easy and mistakes could be quickly changed. If you come back after the 6 month block come to my talk page again and listen to advice this time. Derild 49 21 ☼ 12:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I am unblocked,i would like to keep the live spellcheck and twinkle but i am happy to be restricted.Gobbles (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<edit conflict with gobbles>I apologise if this comment sounds really, really stupid, but if such conditions are imposed on his unblock, would it be possible that his huggle.css, vector.js, and vector.css be deleted, and all his skin.jses and skin.csses be fully protected from creation? Kayau Voting IS evil 12:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just as a comment, Twinke would still be able to be allowed through preferences. Unless there's someway through that? Derild 49 21 ☼ 12:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, there appears to be one. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) No, I really don't think you should keep Twinkle, as you have repeatedly misused it and you haven't really shown any willingness to learn how to use it properly. And I don't mean your multiple promises to be careful - I mean your unwillingness to stop what you're doing wrong when told, and your unwillingness to follow your mentor's directions. I seriously think you need a spell of only being able to do things manually, which is the best way to gain the quality experience that you need - you should forget vandal-fighting, or anything related to changing other editors' work, and just do manual content work of your own on football articles. As your mentor suggested (but which, alas, again you ignored) I think you would learn a lot by finding and expanding stub articles - and if you set that as a goal for yourself for, say, your next 6 months of work, I think you'd improve your chances of an early unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing stubs sounds interesting.If I was to be unblocked i think i would give that a go.But mainly,as the football season starts this saturday,I would be focusing all the time on updating the footballers appearances and goals.Gobbles (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's great you find interest in it now, but isn't it a bit late? Derild 49 21 ☼ 13:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<edit conflict>If you get unblocked, I'd advise you to remove the last sentence of your userpage, as well as the one about aiming for awards. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it now.Gobbles (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh,i can't.Gobbles (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's because your block does not allow that; I can do it for you. I also strongly advise you to insert a space after punctuation, especially since you are planning to expand stubs. Like this: 'I love apples. I love oranges, too.' rather than: 'I love apples.I love oranges,too.' Kayau Voting IS evil 13:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I have been quite bored since i was blocked. I support Ipswich Town F.C. and the players' stats don't get updated often as there aren't many ipswich fans on wikipedia. Gobbles (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen alot of vandalism today but can do nothing about it.If i am unblocked i will be extremely careful.Gobbles (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And even after all this, you haven't taken in anything, have you? You are NOT going to be allowed to go back to what you were doing, no matter how many times you promise to be careful. So just leave vandalism to the rest of us (the thousands of other editors will get by just fine without you) and try to convince us that you have listened to what we have been telling you! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that I may not have been listening to other users all the time.When i was using the live spellcheck,some of the time I didn't realise that I was editing someones user page or talk page.Gobbles (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I at least have my ban reduced?,Gobbles (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look Gobbles, the admin's decision is final. When I think of all the silly applications you made to be an admin yourself and wouldn't stop, and in spite of all my friendly warnings that you were heading fast for a block, you haven't taken a blind bit of notice of what I and everyone else has been telling you. If you start asking now for your well deserved long block to be shortened, you might end up having it extended, or even being blocked indefinitely for the cheek of wasting everyone's time. Take a final tip, and give Wikipedia a miss for a while and find something else to do during the school holidays. Get yourself a fee blog page from Google and write your own blog or something. You could call it Advice for Kids How Not to Get Blocked on Wikipedia.--Kudpung (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I can't reduce your block, and to be honest, I don't think it would be right to so so even if I could. I've now looked back over your whole Talk page archives, and I just don't see sufficient competence or maturity for you to be a Wikipedia editor right now - I just see lots of repeated warning for the same things, even repeated warnings for making the same mistakes with football stats, over and over again, and that you are either not listening to people or not capable of learning. Wikipedia needs a bit of maturity - especially the maturity to understand what you are and are not capable of doing properly. Maturity is not the same as age - we have a 13 year old here who possesses maturity well in advance of their years, but you do not possess the same maturity yet (and that's not an insult - by definition, the average 12 year old has the maturity of a 12 year old). The block is not a punishment, and its length should not be about what things you promise to do or how you promise to change. The block is there for your own good as well as Wikipedia's, and I think what you most need now is time - actual time to actually grow a bit older, and a bit more mature with it. You can develop a lot in six months, so I'd urge you to spend the time away from Wikipedia and enjoy some of your young life doing young things. And when you come back, I'll be happy to help you get restarted (assuming I'm still here, of course, and providing you do actually show the extra bit of maturity that is needed). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.For the next six months,i am going to read the pages about tagging pages,speedy deletion,twinkle,disruptive editing etc.I will definitely better in six months.I would just like to take this time though to say thank-you to all the administrators and other users for the information you have given me.I will also read my archived talk pages over and over.Best regards.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, erm, don't forget to go off and do some stuff that's not Wikipedia too, eh? ;-) Happy summer hols -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest BsZ. On a comment by kayau,it says that he hopes i will be more mature when i come back and my ban being shortened where possible. What does he mean by the latter half?Gobbleswoggler (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I presume he was just hoping the block could be shortened, but the consensus appears to be against that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I meant. Kayau Voting IS evil 10:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are the chances it will be shortened? Gobbleswoggler (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gobbles, as we have said, an admin's decision is final. It is now near impossible for the block to be shortened.Derild 49 21 ☼ 14:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Gobbles, I mean this in the friendliest possible way, but just stop badgering us, switch off, and go away for a while! Go straight to Real Life, do not pass Go, do not enter "http://en.wikipedia.org" into your browser. (I, for one, will not talk to you further until after your block is lifted). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

received your email

I have absolutely no intention of reducing your block, and the idea that you received no warning that you were doing anything wrong is laughable in the extreme. You are not blocked from editing this talk page, if you want to appeal the block you can post another unblock request and another administrator will review your reasoning. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of fairness, I don't necessarily check my WP email account every day, he sent the message on Wednesday but I didn't see it till this morning. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Gobbles doesn't realise is that if he persists, an angry admin might even block him from editing his talk page too!--Kudpung (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An admin who acts in that fashion out of anger ought not to be an admin. If there's disruption going on, that's one thing, but to take away talk page access out of anger is another. I'm not saying there won't be a reason to take away talk page access - I can see that coming as a possible outcome here - but I just don't like the perception that admins do things around here because they're angry. We should - not saying all of us do, nor all of the time, but we should - be acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia and the community that supports it. Frank | talk 20:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Received yet another email

And the answer is still the same as the above. If for some reason you don't want to use the normal unblock request process you can email WP:BASC. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Countervandalism

I've seen a handful of reports you've made come up on WP:AIV, frequently with comments from Admins that have declined to block the reported user because of insufficient warnings. I'd recommend you read WP:CVU for a better overview of warning and/or reporting vandals. I applaud your efforts at reducing the damage vandals do to Wikipedia, but like many other behind-the-scenes tasks, it requires close attention to details and careful following of established procedures. And it's not a race, as I was told early on in my own efforts. Nobody gets awards for reverting the most questionable edits in the shortest period. It's more important to get it RIGHT than it is to get it FAST. Cheers, Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thin ice Gobbles, very thin ice. Being too gung-ho was what basically what got you booted off WP for six months, and your block only expired yesterday. You said you were going to use that time to gain a better understanding of policies before doing any more vandal fighting. Vandal fighting is a good thing, but it must be done from an informed stance, and with the assumption of good faith. And didn't we talk about you using any kind of automated tool? I and others do not believe you have the judgement needed to use them and that you should only edit manually as it should force you to slow down and think about what you are doing. I must ask that you turn off Stiki and any other automated tools or gadgets you are using. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to stick my nose in here just a bit further. I haven't used STiki much; it's not an especially intuitive tool, and it makes assumptions regarding the experience level of the user. For someone who's just getting a serious hold on the countervandalism procedures, IMO it does more harm than good. I can understand wanting to make use of a tool that combines reversion of vandalism and warning the vandal into a single mouse action, but there's a downside of that too, and that downside is that it's easy to select an incorrect warning template to send the vandal, or report an editor to WP:AIV prematurely. I'm primarily a Huggle user, and have been for some time...and I still catch myself hitting the wrong button at a bad time and having to both revert my own edit and go to the user's Talk page and remove an improperly-posted warning. For someone who's apparently had previous problems with handling such tools, as I see in earlier commentary here, it's best to leave the tools untouched, and instead use the "old-school" method of looking at edits on the Recent Changes page, evaluating them properly, deciding whether to revert, and then telling the editor in question what you did and why by posting the appropriate template by hand. Sure, it's slow, but that's the point. It forces you to think the whole process through.

Sorry if I'm stepping on toes here. I'm not trying to slap you down or dim what I consider your commendable enthusiam. My aim is to get you to hear what others are telling you. As Spider Robinson commented, "Get it right, you're a star...get it half-right, you're a gas giant." Cheers, Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vandalism

They could be warned. I didn't because I don't most times. I know that the "proper" way to do things would be to warn them but with IPs, it's hard to tell if you'll be 'talking' to the same person since IP addresses change. If similar edits come from the same address, then I'll usually warn them since the IP, at that point, seems to be fixed to one person. If you'd like to warn them, be my guest. Dismas|^(talk) 10:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Snow Canyon High School article... They both seem to be, yes. I checked the school's web site and it doesn't mention even the existence of a chess team, much less a championship. And the edit pointing out that the soccer team has never won a championship is simply pointless and therefore can be seen as vandalism. Dismas|^(talk) 11:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not vandalism

This should not have been reverted as vandalism or as a test. Yes, it should have been reverted, but for a different reason and with a different warning message - it was promotional, or possibly a good faith personal opinion. Vandalism, as you have been told numerous times, is a deliberate attempt to damage the encyclopedia. I'd recommend you only use STicki to revert changes that are blatantly and obviously bad faith vandalism, or are obviously test edits -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not vandalism

This was not vandalism. It's part of a plot line about a soap opera, and it might even be factually correct - did you bother to check the article to see what it was about before you reverted it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not vandalism

This was not vandalism. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not vandalism

This isn't vandalism - it's clearly a good faith, but erroneous, attempt to add information. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About using STiki

Gobbles, you need to pay some attention here and adjust what you are doing. You're doing a lot of good vandalism reverts, but you're still getting too many wrong, and I think the reason for your mistakes is the same as it's always been - you're going too fast. SLOW DOWN.

Part of the problem is your use of STiki, which can be used to revert vandalism very quickly - but it needs some expertise. You absolutely have to be able to understand exactly what is and what is not vandalism, and I'm afraid you still don't appear to understand. If you have a look at the range of warnings at Wikipedia:Warnings, you'll see many different ones, for a variety of different reasons. I haven't used STiki much - in fact, I've only given it a trial run yesterday - but it seems to me that it is aimed at the {{subst:uw-vandalism...}} range of reasons/warnings only, as that seems to be the only warnings it gives, and it always says "test/vandalism" in the edit summary. It appears to be only for obvious test edits or blatant vandalism, not for flexible or general-purpose reverting.

That means for other reversion reasons/warnings - blanking, POV, incorrect article layout, bad grammar, factual inaccuracies, etc, you should not be reverting them as vandalism and warning people of vandalism. Yes they often should be reverted, but not using STiki.

Unless you're looking at blatantly obvious vandalism ("Woo woo, he's got a small penis" kind of stuff), you should be clicking through the links to check the actual article diffs, looking at the history, reading the actual article to understand the context of the change, and then perhaps reverting manually and warning manually. You should NOT just be clicking the "Vandalism (undo)" button.

I really fear you are going to lose STiki access soon, and even be banned from using all automated tools. In fact, unless you get your act together pretty quickly, listen to what people are saying, and most of all SLOW DOWN, I think it will be inevitable.

I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but you have a history of not paying attention to friendly advice. And you really are running out of last chances here.

Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like BsZ beat me to it. Because, well, I was going to advise Gobbles to stop using all automated tools. :( So, anyway, here it is: Please stop using all automated tools. I don't know, maybe ask an admin to fully protect your skin.js and skin.css pages? And keep away from the 'gadgets' section of your preferences. I know you mean no harm, but you really need to hone your vandalism identification skills before using Stiki or any other automated tools. I'd advise you to stick to updating football stats until you have a better idea of what vandalism is. Kayau Voting IS evil 14:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And this is all very reminiscent of your behavior before your block. I'm just going to lay it on the line here: you are not competent at determining what is and is not vandalism. You simply cannot tell the difference between a vandalistic edit, other types of poor editing that are good-faith mistakes, and perfectly good edits. You have apparently not learned anything during your six month hiatus and you still do not listen and learn when those who know better try to advise you. If you do not cease these activities at once I am ready to block you again. Since six months didn't help it will have to be for longer. This is not a threat, I am offering you a choice. Do something else, something you can actually do without doing more harm than good, or be shown the exit again. We try to be tolerant of users who are trying to help but just aren't any good at it, but there comes a point where the effort expending babysitting you exceeds the benefit of retaining you as an editor. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a further hint, Gobbles. How many times have you been advised to slow down? How many times before your block, six months ago? How many times in the last couple of days, after it was lifted? How fast are you still going? If I found myself in your current position, I'd stop with with vandalism patrol altogether and focus 100% on these discussions, and on listening to what people are telling me. And I'd try to come up with a plan to go forward in a way that will prevent the same problems happening again and again. What do you think? Do you have any ideas what a successful plan might look like? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Hi Gobbleswoggler, I'm happy to help with general questions - perhaps offer advice on how to use tools, on how to learn about various policies, etc. But as I've said to you several times on my Talk page now, I can't solve every one of your uncertainties when it comes to whether something is vandalism or not, or whether it's a bad username. The whole point of *you* patrolling vandalism etc is that *you* have to use *your* judgment, based on the relevant Wikipedia policy pages, rather than other people having to make the decisions. And if your judgment is not up to it, and you are uncertain about something - just leave it alone! Move on to the next thing, and leave the one you don't understand to the next person who happens to see it - there are many people doing new change patrol, and someone more confident will surely come along. So please, I've asked you 3 or 4 times now, stop asking me "Is this change vandalism?" etc every time you don't know. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think one of my problems i that i am trying to undo everything I think is vandalism without thinking properly so I will take that into account. Gobbleswoggler (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good start - now what about the words "slow" and "down"? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't be making rash decisions.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's part of it, but not quite what I mean - care to try again? Or do I need to painfully spell it out for you? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doing too many things at once? Not listening ? Gobbleswoggler (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're just generally trying to work too fast - I look at your contribution history and I see you're doing 4, 5, 6 or more reverts a minute. That's nowhere near enough time on each one for you to be properly thinking things through. Slow it down a lot - do, say, one every 2 or 3 minutes max, and use the time to have a look at the actual article diff (not just the STiki dif window), check out the history, look to see if you need to revert back to any earlier versions, check to see if it's a habitual vandal whose other edits might need to be looked at? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll try that,but it they are blatant and clear vandalism I will revert quicker.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I may weigh in ‑ even with blatant vandalism, check the article's recent history for possible previous vandalisms that have been missed, look for the last stable edit and then revert to that stable edit, for example. And then check the vandals' previous edits, sometimes they're just single edits and sometime you hit pay dirt. It's not as tedious as it sounds and actually it's fun. Zebedee says one every two or three minutes, I would say more like one every five or ten minutes.

There's ways to kill half an hour here and there, which I think a lot of people here would like to see. Sniff around in different users' talk pages ‑ usually boring but once in a while you get to see a little action like you last August. It's fun seeing how other users get into trouble. Once in a while link off when you see links such as Wikipedia:WikiOtter and also policy and advice pages. Take your time and enjoy yourself. Slight Smile 20:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I agree with that 100%. When I do reversions, I always look at the article history to see if there are any more problematic edits in addition to the latest one. Often you find, for example, several vandal edits by different IPs, and if you don't check them and only revert the latest one, you're reverting to a version that is still vandalised. And to make it worse, other editors will see your reversion and think you've fixed it properly - while you have removed one bit of vandalism, but have "sealed in" some others, and they are now a good bit harder to spot. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion

Here's a suggestion you might want to consider. Why don't you take a short break from Wikipedia, and come over to Wikibooks instead? Wikibooks has as much vandalism per day as Wikipedia has in a minute, so there's a lot of time for you to think carefully about whether the edit constitutes vandalism. Don't use Twinkle and ask for help when necessary - we've a small but nice community over there. While you're at it, maybe you can help write up a Wikijunior book about football or any topic you're interested in. There are few guidelines about format except an unofficial Manual of Style, so there's very little chance you'll make any mistakes by doing so. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One last chance?

Hi Gobbles. You just asked me, over on my Talk page, for one last chance.

Let's be blunt - you've already had more "last chances" than most people, but you've thrown every one of them back in our faces. You have repeatedly promised to stick to simple things and not do things you don't fully understand, but you have broken those promises every time.

So no, if it was my decision, you'd get no more chances, and you would now be blocked again.

If you look back at our recent interactions, you might see that I appear to have been getting a bit pissed off with your constant refusals to listen and to actually follow the sensible advice that a number of people have given you - and if you look back on my Talk page archives and the interactions I've been involved in, you'll see that I'm a pretty relaxed kind of person who really doesn't get pissed off easily.

I do think you're trying to edit in good faith, but I simply don't think you possess sufficient competence and maturity to do the things you're trying to do - they really are things that need mature judgment, and you just do not possess it. That is not a problem for many young Wikipedians, because most of them recognize their limitations and keep within them, gradually learning and expanding as they go. But you can't see your own limitations even when a large number of very experienced Wikipedians repeatedly point them out to you and give you very clear advice.

So, I honestly think you should leave Wikipedia for a serious amount of time, and go spend some of your young life doing young person things. (I don't know how old you are, but I know for sure that when I was your age there was no Wikipedia and no Internet, and I spent my spare time in fishing, cycling, photography, reading real paper books, listening to music - all sorts of things). There are plenty of years ahead of you, and you can come back to Wikipedia when it's not the obsession that it seems to be at the moment.

Anyway, I'm not an admin, and what happens to you now is not for me to decide. I wish you well in your life.

Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I really don't want him to be blocked again. I hope this can be prevented if he follows my suggestion on the above section and takes an enforced wikibreak from WP... Kayau Voting IS evil 15:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also,during the week i'll basically just be using Stiki and updating football stats because i'll be at school during the day and be doing homework or extra curricular activities at school.I think if i stick to this,and maybe spellcheck,and reading some guidelines,i could improve.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to remember with spellcheck is that you must always click the 'show changes' button before save. If the wrongly spelt word is linked, click on the link. Kayau Voting IS evil 15:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found that out before i got blocked. One of my first edits since i came back was on spellcheck and i accidently broke a link but instantly corrected it.But i will make sure i do that in the future.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. BTW please make sure you put spaces after punctuation. Kayau Voting IS evil 15:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest,as a percentage,what is the chance i am going to get banned again at this current time? Gobbleswoggler (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer that, and I don't think there actually is one, but you may want to read up on guidelines on the differences between blocks and bans first. Oh, and please come to Wikibooks if you have time. I'm sure you'll like it there. Kayau Voting IS evil 15:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's some more thoughts. If I wielded the Block button and the decision were mine, nothing short of a commitment to stop using all automated tools, and to only work manually, would stay my hand. I'd need you to stop using STiki completely, because I don't think you should be using it until after a lengthy time spent dealing with vandalism manually. That means looking over the recent changes list, looking at diffs, reverting using "Undo", and manually pasting warnings into user talk pages - and doing no other administrative work at all, no SPI, no UAA, no AIV, no nothing. Until you have demonstrated competence at identifying vandalism and an ability to do this one thing, you should not be attempting anything else, and you should definitely not be using any automated tools. Secondly, I'd want to see an end to your constantly broken promises - you made all kinds of promises six months ago before your block, and broke every one. And since you've been back, you have made more and gone on to break all of those too. ONE transgression would lead to an instant block. I have reasonable experience with young teenagers, and one thing I have learned is that if you don't come down hard on them when they repeatedly break promises to behave, they will just carry on taking the piss, as you have been doing - just toothlessly repeating "If you do that again you'll be grounded" gets nowhere. But as I say, the decision is not mine - that's just the way I'd deal with it if it were. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not deliberately trying to piss off anyone as I'm not like that.I believe i've not done anything wrong using STiki since you gave me the advice,e.g. if you're not sure leave it. it just seems like everyone is watching me in particular and it makes me feel under pressure.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since we repeatedly gave you advice to stick to only blatant vandalism reversion, and not do anything you are not 100% sure of, you went on to file a bad SPI report - which is an area you knew very little about! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I now know that and i regret that.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I should add that I really do believe that you mean well here, just that you have serious problems listening to and comprehending what people say to you. And I just don't think have the experience and abilities yet to be using automated tools, or to be venturing into new areas. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe i can use Twinkle,Stiki and spellcheck but thats what i'll stick to and nothing else cos i don't mwant to be a badgerer or annoyance.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think you can use those tools properly - but we'll have to leave it to someone else to decide. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page has been archived

Maturity

Archive

Adoption and more

Red links

"Strange comment"

Adoption?

Your Wikipedia career

Vandalism?

Another "vandalism" problem

I think I'll adopt you.

New Page Patrol isn't easy - not even for an old sod like me

Adopting

So far

RfAs (again)

Smelling pistake

For crying out loud!

Disruption

Another error

Enough was enough a long time ago

Gobbles block

received your email

Received yet another email

Countervandalism

Re: Vandalism

Not vandalism

Not vandalism

Not vandalism

Not vandalism

About using STiki

Please stop

A suggestion

One last chance?

More questionable vandalism reverts