Gobbleswoggler

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Not vandalism

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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. SlightSmile 20:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

He's already had a six month break. Take a short break - ain’t gonna happen. The best thing is what I said, take time out here and there to sniff around the site and get the feel of the place. But I think, as so many users pointed out ad nauseam, he doesn’t listen and is just going end being booted out again. Oh well. SlightSmile 18:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

More questionable vandalism reverts

I've just looked back on recent STiki reverts, and I found the following...

• This might be vandalism, but it might not. It might be a genuine error, and we should assume good faith when reverting. I would have reverted it as an error, not as vandalism.
• This just doesn't look like vandalism - it looks more like a well-meaning edit by someone who doesn't know how to add material to Wikipedia articles.
• This is not vandalism, it is just the addition of a personal opinion. It should be reverted as NPOV, not as vandalism.
• This is not blatantly vandalism, and should probably have been reverted with a spam warning, not as vandalism
• How can you call this vandalism? Do you know what the text you removed means?
• Why is this vandalism? It looks just like a typo to me, as if the editor meant 2004. It is incorrect to add a death date without a source, but doing so should not be treated as vandalism.

Those are from just the first page of your recent contributions, and I think they demonstrate pretty conclusively that you should not be reverting vandalism at the pace that STiki facilitates, if at all. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=El_Anatsui&diff=prev&oldid=412350975 I said this one was vandalism as the person hasnt died yet.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Being factually incorrect isn't necessarily vandalism - it might just be a genuine error. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

(Oh, and how do you know he hasn't died yet?) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Robert_Acquafresca&diff=prev&oldid=412352808 this one because i thought it was vandalism because the text was placed just in any place.

The erroneous placing of text in the wrong place is not vandalism. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

THis is how I know:http://www.octobergallery.co.uk/artists/anatsui/index.shtml Gobbleswoggler (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's good - it postdates the death claim. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a liar so i'll tell you something. I did look up that website after you asked the question. But i forgot it was that easy to check something else.I do understand that you mean well and that you haven't got it in for me.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'm not calling you a liar, and the question about how you knew was just an aside. My real point is that factual errors should not be assumed to be vandalism - someone could honestly be adding something they've heard and genuinely believe to be true. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you will be in the future,but you would make a great administrator. To be honest,until you told me, i thought you were one.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know what this is, but it's not obviously vandalism - it looks to me like someone simply trying to add information. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Hudgins&diff=prev&oldid=412373025 IDK means it don't know and it just looked out of place. And i did search Andrew Hudgins IDK into google and nothing came up.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You have no idea what the editor meant by "IDK", and something just looking out of place does not make it vandalism - nor does not finding it in a Google search. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Also,could you archive this page as it is getting a bit too big and packed up and i don't want to try and mess up.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, give me a few minutes and I'll archive the old stuff. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Done -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ever so much! Gobbleswoggler (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

And one last check showed 4 more new reverts labeled "vandalism" which were not obviously vandalism - one was marginal but certainly not blatant, and I think the others just weren't vandalism at all. I won't list them here now, in the light of the block below. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for gross incompetence. All the good faith in the world won't make up for your manifest inability to comprehend Wikipedia policies. You consistently do more harm than good, and you have been given many "last chances" already and have squandered them all. No promise you make can be trusted as you have broken them all. No advice given to you helps as you ignore it all. Therefore you are indefinitely blocked from editing here.. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

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 know I was told what to do and not to do but i thought i was doing alright with STiki. I know I have been give a final warning e.g.One more bad mistake and you're blocked.And how long is indefinite.It seems that when i make one mistake people have a go at me.When i make a couple i get a load of stick just because i've recently being unblocked.I know i wasn't listening as much as I should have been but i don't feel i was so bad i deserved to be banned,and adding to the fact,not even being told how long.If I am unblocked I give you my word I will listen,I will get a mentor and listen to every single word I say and the minute I ignore you,I can be blocked again. Gobbleswoggler (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have been told on a seriously large number of occasions what you are doing wring, and you still keep on doing it. I think that a long time away, perhaps a year, will enable you to mature to the point where you can understand and follw guidance. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

---

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 count five users trying to mentor you rather intensely over the last two days, with little to no effect. Once again, your inability to recognize and correct problematic behaviors is the issue here. The mistakes you have made are maybe not so bad if taken individually, but when taken as a whole a picture emerges of a user who is simply not capable of contributing here. Indefinite means just that, we don't know when you will be able to demonstrate a basic level of competence. It doesn't necessarily mean forever, but in your case I would suggest that you not even ask for unblock for at least another year. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

1 year! cummon. Thats well harsh. I'll do anything to get unblocked now. I'll stop using all automated tools and I WILL listen to you. I promise.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You have broken every previous promise you have made. Your promises therefore have no value. In the conversations after you last block you repeatedly said "If i am unblocked i will be extremely careful" and yet as soon as your block expired you charged ahead and created many messes to be cleaned up. Another admin will review your request, but I cannot accept any promise from you as genuine, even if you believe what you are saying you are not capable of doing what you promise. That is why you are blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll do anything to be unblocked. This means a heck of a lot to me.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, this is more or less what you said last time. I'm done talking to you as it seems pointless, some other admin will review your request. Please tell your teachers at school they have my deepest sympathy. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Why my teachers? What are you trying to suggest? Gobbleswoggler (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

HI Gobbles. I had actually drafted a message last week to welcome you back, but then I saw I had to hang fire with it for a while. You were blocked for 6 months, you meticulously counted the days, and it must have felt a very long time at your age, and you returned bang on 6 months on 4 February. You have been given advice from some of the most patient of our experienced editors and admins, including me, and still you refused to listen. You lasted THREE whole days before screwing it all up again. Doesn't that tell you anything????? This time your block is indefinite and no amount of pleading on this page and badgering admins will get the block lifted for a very long time - you've lost all the patience and confidence we gave you. Look for a new hobby, write a blog, do some computer graphics, read some books, watch some telly, play some video games - do anything that keeps you off your bicycle, and out of the shopping mall, and ask your class teacher for advice. I wish you well. Kudpung (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Gobbles. Are you still watching your talk page? It's been hinted elsewhere by some editors that my message above was unduly harsh. You've had harsher ones from others, but if you thought it was, please understand that I was only trying to help, and didn't want to hurt your feelings in the slightest. But your problem is, you wouldn't listen, not even to Boing said Zebedee, who also lives some of the time here in Thailand, and is a really patient person. I know how much it means to you to edit the Wikipedia and another whole year is going to seem like a heck of a long time. Beeblebrox who blocked you is a very fair and experienced admin and he's also an WP:oversighter which means he gets a lot of extra trust from this community, and what he says, goes. However, I think we can try to work it out to get your indef block down to a year, or even less if it works out well, but you're gonna have to listen to me. You and I can discuss this here, or if you prefer, we can do it through the Wikipedia email system where we still won't know each others' real names, but where we can talk about in privacy. When I think you're ready, I'll chat with some admins and see what they say. But don't expect any miracles - remember, we're still talking of anything around a year. What do you think? Would you like to give it a try? You can reply here, or on my own talk page. Kudpung (talk) 10:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Block

Any chance of being unblocked anytime soon? Gobbleswoggler (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If you remember, in February, Beeblebrox said "It doesn't necessarily mean forever, but in your case I would suggest that you not even ask for unblock for at least another year." I agree with him. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The reason i want to be unblocked now is because the football season has started and i would change the stats and the is nearly the only thing i would stick to and would make sure i didn't make anymore mistakes because i'll admit i wasn't listening to you before and i was trying to do too much at once and would make sure it wouldn't happen again. Gobbleswoggler (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You should make a formal unblock request using the {{unblock}} template, and wait for someone to evaluate your request. Personally, I would decline such a request, as the "nearly" bit above would not be satisfactory for me, but someone else might have agreed if you promised to *only* update football stats, and absolutely nothing else. However, your block evasion by editing anonymously - see below - has probably scuppered any chance of that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason i was changing the footie stats anonymously is because i'm a massive footie fan and i refer to the stats alot and i wanted to make sure they were up to date for the rest of people to refer to as well. I'm really sorry but you must believe i didnt do it to cause any problems. Thats why i wanted to be unblocked. And when i said nearly above, i was referring to also editing typos or blatant vandalism.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

When you are blocked, you MUST NOT EDIT AT ALL! This is you stubbornly refusing to listen again, Gobbles, and you really are not doing yourself any favours here. Request an unblock using the {{unblock}} template as I suggested, and WAIT and see if you get unblocked - and DO NOT edit from your IP while you are waiting -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and no, NO work on vandalism, as you have shown repeatedly that you have no idea how to identify it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

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 wish to be unblocked as i want to update football statistics. I realise i have not listened to people in the past and i will admit that during the tenure of my blocked, i have been editing the football statistics.The reason i was changing the footie stats anonymously is because i'm a massive footie fan and i refer to the stats alot and i wanted to make sure they were up to date for the rest of people to refer to as well. Plus,if i am unblocked,i will take AND follow advice given to me. The only other things i would edit would be typos,mistakes in the page structures and BLATANT vandalism. I would leave anything incase i disrupted the work of others. I am sorry i haven't taken advice in the past and am not likely to be unblocked now,but i can assure you i will take advice from any that offer it. as i said above,i would love to be unblocked so i could update footie statistics as i enjoy doing so. Thanks for taking the time to read this.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but I don't think you have overcome the competence issue which led to your block in February. You have repeatedly promised you'd listen to others and stop being disruptive, but every time, through overeagerness and, I fear, immaturity, you have created much work for others to clean up after you. Not to mention the extremely recent block evasion, which is the ultimate deal-breaker. As I've said, I'm sorry, but, no, your block will not be lifted at this time. Please wait at least another six months before requesting another unblock and, what's more important, do not evade this block again. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

---

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.

IP blocked

I've blocked your IP, as you are using it to anonymously evade your block. While blocked, you are NOT allowed to edit Wikipedia at all. This will not go down well in your attempts to be unblocked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)