You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Richard Dawkins. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. --
Strothra
17:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
You are in clear violation of WP:3RR. May I politely suggest reading " Dawkins' God" and quote mining that instead of a triple-XXX satirical show? Jok2000 17:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
While I believe you were acting in good faith in nominating this article for deletion review, you would've done well to take the advice provided for you at the help desk. The Peppers issue has been discussed, and discussed, and discussed again. As you have not brought up any new source information, nor any manner in which the previous concerns could be addressed, I have closed the discussion. If you can find a significant amount of source material which may allow a full encyclopedic article to be written, you may want to open the discussion later on, but please keep in mind that we've been trolled ad nauseum on this issue, so if you're going to bring a case it better be airtight. And calling people "wikinazis" will not help your credibility either. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
What. The. Hell.
I return from a long day, and check some edits... And see that you nominated the Clan (Warriors) page for deletion. Why the fuck did you do this! You have never been involved in any Warriors-related things here, why just randomly nominate a page? It's quite an asshole move. We've had that page for over a year. It's perfectly fine, and you've done a very good job at pissing me off now. You... Gah. There are so many things I want to call you right now. Just give a good answer. -- ~|ET|~( Talk| Contribs) 03:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Aside from what ET's said above, since you, Pilotbob, have gone ahead and tagged a number of other articles related to the series, rather than just telling us that we need to go about fixing them and such, could you, perhaps, help us in doing it? Or maybe provide an example of how to improve them? I'm a bit sorry to say that the Wikipedia articles on what the site expects in its articles, what it's not, etc aren't very helpful in telling you just how to fix what's wrong. Well, no, I suppose I ought to say "showing," as showing is often more effective than telling (which it would be in this situation with the Warriors articles). Also, I feel a little surprised that you've gone after only these articles so far. Some of the Harry Potter articles are rather alike these ones, providing much information about the series universe that would probably be found on a fansite, etc.... TakaraLioness 01:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm hoping to have a discussion with you about, or at least provide some constructive criticism about, why deletion sprees are a bad idea. Particularily ones about notability or "cruft". Unfortunately, before getting to it I still need to get a fair bit of rest, fashion much of an essay on ethics and calm a fruitless argument by holding a spontaneous picnic on a talk page. (Long story.)
In the meantime, I'm sorry that you've received insults. Those are uncalled-for and unacceptable in any circumstances. And being insulted by a group that you feel compassion for just shouldn't happen. -- Kizor 19:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Putting seven different clean up tags onto an article is getting really disruptive. Instead of going about doing that in what appears to be in response to the AFD on Power Animal (Gaoranger), why not improve the article yourself, instead of making it even longer (visually) with all those tags?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 06:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amedio Jungle as withdrawn based on your comment there. You can nominate the one(s) you wish separately. Thanks! -- JHunterJ 16:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Tell you what. I'm currently trying to engage in several discussions about why mass-nominating articles for deletion on notability grounds is a bad idea. Given what you're currently doing, I'd like to have one with you. Thing is that I suck at punctuality, (consequently) am busy IRL, and managed to accidentally close an edit window with my half-done arguments to you while staying up late, so could you hold off the nominations for a couple of days while I get my thoughts sorted out and maybe get an eight-page essay off my back? The articles aren't going anywhere, after all... -- Kizor 02:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
It be useful to me and other editors who are interested in the Game-related deletions if you could add a deletion sorting tag to any game related AFDs at the time of nomination. Please have a glance at WikiProject Deletion sorting for guidance as to how this works and why it is benefical.
Basically, as adding certain tags helps with identifying game-related deletions by the addition of the following tag and then adding the AFD to Game-related deletions page:
This example is done by adding this tag to the AfD by adding the following text:
This way we can all keep a tab on game-deletions.
P.S. Thanks for the Barnstar! -- Gavin Collins 14:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Bob, Sorry for making a mess of my AfD nominations, I'd don't do it often but I stumbled into this nest of P'n'R articles. In truth, they should all (or most) be simply merged into one. ( Sarah777 23:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC))
I had noticed that you tagged the kekkei genkai article for deletion and posted my reasons to keep it on the AfD thingamajig or whatever you call it. Then I came here to this talk page and found out that there were other articles tagged for deletion. This leads me to believe that you have a personal vendetta against Wikipedia and are performing a deletion spree.
I suggest that you work with editors to fix the articles in question rather than automatically propose them for deletion, using deletion as a last resort instead of a first strike. I also suggest you read WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:CRUFT.
Thank you and have a good day. ItachiUchihaArticleForTheWin 21:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Was it entirely necessary to list five similar articles on five different AFDs and tag a dozen other pages with inuniverse, tone, etc.? All of this appears to be a bit retaliatory due to the keep of Power Animal (Gaoranger). It would appear that you are attempting to make a point. Just because an article is written bad does not mean it needs to be deleted.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 04:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
AndalusianNaugahyde 04:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi just so so you know I am working on removing unecessary details from Wikipedia on Power Rangers and Super Sentai to deal with your excessive deletions and moving it over to the Power Rangers Wiki. First step I am doing is removing all monster related details to that Wiki and then delete every bit of it from Wikipedia once everything has been moved to it's proper place on that site. Just so you know if you think the monster list on Super Sentai is bad, the Power Rangers monster page is also about the same shape. - Adv193 03:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'd only request that if you are going to delete it that you put the info back where it came from. That the Dwarf language bit goes back to Dwarf (Discworld), the Troll language bit goes back to Trolls {Discworld) etc. Ook could probably be merged with the Librarian's article. Serendipod ous 11:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
*Choir sings out*
*Descends from above, adminship gem still burning in chest*
*Adjusts glasses, begins speaking in a wheezy nasal voice*
I performed my first AfD closure when I closed one of yours as speedy keep earlier today. Though you apparently didn't notice, the article had survived an AfD scant weeks before and they should be left alone for long enough after they do. There are a variety of reasons for this, including the opportunity to cleanup and improve the articles (work that often proceeds with nigh-glacial slowness, volunteer projects being what they are), the drain on resources and contributors, and the enormous potential for abuse. Once the previous nomination was pointed out, there was only one way this one could end. To my knowledge there's no standard on what is long enough, though mere weeks is rejected outright and two months should cause some indignation.
To be neurotic, I reiterate that the decision is unrelated to you, your actions, my nonexistent ill will and slowly growing desperation, and the opinions that I keep failing to express above. (Fortunately, I am only mandated to be competent when exercising these new powers.) -- Kizor 17:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I've recently closed the AFDs (link provided in the header) both as keep. If you have any further comments to make, please don't hesitate to contact me anytime on my talk page. Regards, Rudget Contributions 17:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked you for 24 hours while I and other admins try to work out what you are up to. Since yo don't edit content other than to tag or AfD it, this should not cause you too much inconvenience, but please bear with us while we investigate. Guy ( Help!) 01:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Pilotbob ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I don't think its fair that I was blocked. I can't participate in any discussions related to this block due to being blocked. If you want to unblock me, I can stay off the AFDs for 24 hours while we discuss this matter in a fair way
Decline reason:
it seems like a fair and just block to me given your behaviour — Alison ❤ 05:33, 9 November 2007 (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.
Pilotbob ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I hate to make a pest of myself, but I still don't agree that this block is justified. What behavior is specifically a problem and what Wikipedia policies does it violate that warrant a block. I have been blocked by someone who would say something like "shut the fuck up you whining twat" to another editor. That indicates a lack of maturity on the part of the blocker. Irrespective of this, it is wholly not justified. Pilotbob 05:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is being discussed at WP:ANI#User:Pilotbob and I don't see any consensus there to unblock.— chaser - t 05:49, 9 November 2007 (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.
For a single user account hell bent on vandalism, I can see the need for a block, but I don't see how a block on an established editor can be justified. The grounds for this block are as follows:
I think these are opinions and generalisations made by Guy for which no evidence has been given. This block is little more than an attempt to discredit and gag an established editor, and should be ended with immediate effect.-- Gavin Collins 17:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the
Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --
SineBot
07:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know that due to heavy vandalism on your userpage, User:Acalamari has indefinitely semi-protected your userpage. NHRHS2010 talk 00:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I thought you had departed. Even for a stubborn idealist, I don't hold much hope of persuading you of much of anything by text from the other side of the planet when workdays find you right beside two other hardline deletionists. Still, there's one thing that kept bugging me after you, fluffy and andalusian left, so I thought I'd comment on it by relating an anecdote:
Doctorfluffy remarked, as a reason you were doing AfD sprees, that editors had to be retaught to respect the rules.
Hi,
Over the course of your editing history, you have been at the center of a large amount of controversy over problematic AFD uses. This has included "deletion sprees" and a wide range of fairly likely notable articles. It's seen you being told many, many times not to do this, and you saying that you will discuss but continue doing so anyway. You've been reviewed and considered likely to be involved in puppetry, been at ANI twice, been told to keep away from such actions and agreed to do so. Despite all this here we are again, December 24, and five AFDs created. I have taken a look and thought hard how best to address this.
A number of your AFDs are well chosen. For example this this and the copyvio analysis and comment here. Unfortunately WP:ANI archives, and your talk page, also bear testimony that your poor judgement of when to file an AFD is also causing a problem. This often takes the form of:
One of these was kept at AFD a mere 4 weeks ago [1], and speedy refiling is usually considered disruptive under those circumstances. Amongst others you have filed for deletion are this, this, this, this, and this. You often file many AFDs in a day this way, and this has led to concern at ANI [2] [3] and blocks in the past, and comments by experienced editors to your talk pages and ANI that the concerns persist. AFD disruption is more serious than usual vandalism or edit warring - it wastes many peoples' time, raises friction and upset, and can dishearten contributors where an explanation would have done better. These are all extremely damaging.
At the same time some of your actions are positive, and I do not feel inclined to lose the benefit of good actions if possible. I therefore feel the following is the best approach I can think of, as a proposal:
If you agree, I would like you to restrict your own filing of AFDs and PRODs. I would like you to visit WP:AN and ask for someone willing to double check your suggested AFD and PROD filings, as a form of mentorship', to help you develop better judgement when to file, when not - someone you can post a list of articles to, and they will advise whether to AFD them or not, and why. In particular I would like you to stop filing AFDs for any article:
I won't insist on this, but I will say that my alternative was a serious length block, which might have been anything from 10 days to 3 weeks, which is exceptional for a 2nd block, in view of 1/ the high level of disruption and problems caused, 2/ the many warnings and expressions of concern, 3/ the refusal to get the point or learn, or change, 4/ the multiple calls at ANI and elsewhere suggestive of bad faith, problems and pupettry, 5/ the many editors who are familiar with your actions and have commented on their apparent bad faith over the months, 6/ your emphasis on deletion as your main contribution.
if this issue arises again, you have now had all the above warnings plus this, and would probably be blocked for a serious period, or " until the matter is resolved". I therefore strongly urge that you do not merely re-explain why it was all okay (I've read those and taken note of them), but seek mentorship -- someone to help you learn how and when to AFD, and become more capable of judging when to ask or discuss or hold back.
I leave the choice up to you. Please let me know if I can help in any way.
FT2 ( Talk | email) 21:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, My good Fellow, listen and I shalt telleth Ye a Tale of a Wiki that well comes All Manner of Articles relating to Fiction. What is This wonderful Place of Fantasy, You ask? It is the Annex, Haven to All fiction-related Refugee Articles from Wikipedia.
Before nominating or proposing a fiction-related Article for Deletion, It is My sincerest Hope that Ye import It to the Annex. Why do This, You wonder? Individuals have dedicated an enormous Amount of Time to writing These Articles, and ’twould be a Pity for the Information to Vanish unto the Oblivion where only Administrators could see Them.
Here is a Step-by-Step Process of how to Bringeth Articles into the Annex:
export.xml
” and save It. Leave the Window open.{{Wikipedia|{{PAGENAME}}}}
at the Bottom of the imported Article at the Annex, and Ye art now finally done! Keepeth the “export.xml” File for future Use.Thank Ye for using the Annex, My Friend — the Annex Hath Spoken 01:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The article Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election and its associated pages were deleted as of 9 Nov 2008, and the deletions are now being reviewed. Because of your prior involvement, please comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election. Thank you for your consideration! 20 involved editors are being notified. JJB 19:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for your good faith efforts at AfD and for all you do on Wikipedia! — Keithbob • Talk • 16:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC) |
You apparently didn't bother reading this nearly eight years when it was first posted on this very page. I'll repost it in hopes that you'll make the minimum effort to do so now:
While I believe you were acting in good faith in nominating this article for deletion review, you would've done well to take the advice provided for you at the help desk. The Peppers issue has been discussed, and discussed, and discussed again. As you have not brought up any new source information, nor any manner in which the previous concerns could be addressed, I have closed the discussion. If you can find a significant amount of source material which may allow a full encyclopedic article to be written, you may want to open the discussion later on, but please keep in mind that we've been trolled ad nauseum on this issue, so if you're going to bring a case it better be airtight. And calling people "wikinazis" will not help your credibility either. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
-- Calton | Talk 08:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Pilotbob. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Pilotbob. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Richard Dawkins. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. --
Strothra
17:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
You are in clear violation of WP:3RR. May I politely suggest reading " Dawkins' God" and quote mining that instead of a triple-XXX satirical show? Jok2000 17:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
While I believe you were acting in good faith in nominating this article for deletion review, you would've done well to take the advice provided for you at the help desk. The Peppers issue has been discussed, and discussed, and discussed again. As you have not brought up any new source information, nor any manner in which the previous concerns could be addressed, I have closed the discussion. If you can find a significant amount of source material which may allow a full encyclopedic article to be written, you may want to open the discussion later on, but please keep in mind that we've been trolled ad nauseum on this issue, so if you're going to bring a case it better be airtight. And calling people "wikinazis" will not help your credibility either. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
What. The. Hell.
I return from a long day, and check some edits... And see that you nominated the Clan (Warriors) page for deletion. Why the fuck did you do this! You have never been involved in any Warriors-related things here, why just randomly nominate a page? It's quite an asshole move. We've had that page for over a year. It's perfectly fine, and you've done a very good job at pissing me off now. You... Gah. There are so many things I want to call you right now. Just give a good answer. -- ~|ET|~( Talk| Contribs) 03:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Aside from what ET's said above, since you, Pilotbob, have gone ahead and tagged a number of other articles related to the series, rather than just telling us that we need to go about fixing them and such, could you, perhaps, help us in doing it? Or maybe provide an example of how to improve them? I'm a bit sorry to say that the Wikipedia articles on what the site expects in its articles, what it's not, etc aren't very helpful in telling you just how to fix what's wrong. Well, no, I suppose I ought to say "showing," as showing is often more effective than telling (which it would be in this situation with the Warriors articles). Also, I feel a little surprised that you've gone after only these articles so far. Some of the Harry Potter articles are rather alike these ones, providing much information about the series universe that would probably be found on a fansite, etc.... TakaraLioness 01:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm hoping to have a discussion with you about, or at least provide some constructive criticism about, why deletion sprees are a bad idea. Particularily ones about notability or "cruft". Unfortunately, before getting to it I still need to get a fair bit of rest, fashion much of an essay on ethics and calm a fruitless argument by holding a spontaneous picnic on a talk page. (Long story.)
In the meantime, I'm sorry that you've received insults. Those are uncalled-for and unacceptable in any circumstances. And being insulted by a group that you feel compassion for just shouldn't happen. -- Kizor 19:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Putting seven different clean up tags onto an article is getting really disruptive. Instead of going about doing that in what appears to be in response to the AFD on Power Animal (Gaoranger), why not improve the article yourself, instead of making it even longer (visually) with all those tags?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 06:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amedio Jungle as withdrawn based on your comment there. You can nominate the one(s) you wish separately. Thanks! -- JHunterJ 16:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Tell you what. I'm currently trying to engage in several discussions about why mass-nominating articles for deletion on notability grounds is a bad idea. Given what you're currently doing, I'd like to have one with you. Thing is that I suck at punctuality, (consequently) am busy IRL, and managed to accidentally close an edit window with my half-done arguments to you while staying up late, so could you hold off the nominations for a couple of days while I get my thoughts sorted out and maybe get an eight-page essay off my back? The articles aren't going anywhere, after all... -- Kizor 02:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
It be useful to me and other editors who are interested in the Game-related deletions if you could add a deletion sorting tag to any game related AFDs at the time of nomination. Please have a glance at WikiProject Deletion sorting for guidance as to how this works and why it is benefical.
Basically, as adding certain tags helps with identifying game-related deletions by the addition of the following tag and then adding the AFD to Game-related deletions page:
This example is done by adding this tag to the AfD by adding the following text:
This way we can all keep a tab on game-deletions.
P.S. Thanks for the Barnstar! -- Gavin Collins 14:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Bob, Sorry for making a mess of my AfD nominations, I'd don't do it often but I stumbled into this nest of P'n'R articles. In truth, they should all (or most) be simply merged into one. ( Sarah777 23:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC))
I had noticed that you tagged the kekkei genkai article for deletion and posted my reasons to keep it on the AfD thingamajig or whatever you call it. Then I came here to this talk page and found out that there were other articles tagged for deletion. This leads me to believe that you have a personal vendetta against Wikipedia and are performing a deletion spree.
I suggest that you work with editors to fix the articles in question rather than automatically propose them for deletion, using deletion as a last resort instead of a first strike. I also suggest you read WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:CRUFT.
Thank you and have a good day. ItachiUchihaArticleForTheWin 21:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Was it entirely necessary to list five similar articles on five different AFDs and tag a dozen other pages with inuniverse, tone, etc.? All of this appears to be a bit retaliatory due to the keep of Power Animal (Gaoranger). It would appear that you are attempting to make a point. Just because an article is written bad does not mean it needs to be deleted.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 04:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
AndalusianNaugahyde 04:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi just so so you know I am working on removing unecessary details from Wikipedia on Power Rangers and Super Sentai to deal with your excessive deletions and moving it over to the Power Rangers Wiki. First step I am doing is removing all monster related details to that Wiki and then delete every bit of it from Wikipedia once everything has been moved to it's proper place on that site. Just so you know if you think the monster list on Super Sentai is bad, the Power Rangers monster page is also about the same shape. - Adv193 03:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'd only request that if you are going to delete it that you put the info back where it came from. That the Dwarf language bit goes back to Dwarf (Discworld), the Troll language bit goes back to Trolls {Discworld) etc. Ook could probably be merged with the Librarian's article. Serendipod ous 11:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
*Choir sings out*
*Descends from above, adminship gem still burning in chest*
*Adjusts glasses, begins speaking in a wheezy nasal voice*
I performed my first AfD closure when I closed one of yours as speedy keep earlier today. Though you apparently didn't notice, the article had survived an AfD scant weeks before and they should be left alone for long enough after they do. There are a variety of reasons for this, including the opportunity to cleanup and improve the articles (work that often proceeds with nigh-glacial slowness, volunteer projects being what they are), the drain on resources and contributors, and the enormous potential for abuse. Once the previous nomination was pointed out, there was only one way this one could end. To my knowledge there's no standard on what is long enough, though mere weeks is rejected outright and two months should cause some indignation.
To be neurotic, I reiterate that the decision is unrelated to you, your actions, my nonexistent ill will and slowly growing desperation, and the opinions that I keep failing to express above. (Fortunately, I am only mandated to be competent when exercising these new powers.) -- Kizor 17:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I've recently closed the AFDs (link provided in the header) both as keep. If you have any further comments to make, please don't hesitate to contact me anytime on my talk page. Regards, Rudget Contributions 17:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked you for 24 hours while I and other admins try to work out what you are up to. Since yo don't edit content other than to tag or AfD it, this should not cause you too much inconvenience, but please bear with us while we investigate. Guy ( Help!) 01:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Pilotbob ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I don't think its fair that I was blocked. I can't participate in any discussions related to this block due to being blocked. If you want to unblock me, I can stay off the AFDs for 24 hours while we discuss this matter in a fair way
Decline reason:
it seems like a fair and just block to me given your behaviour — Alison ❤ 05:33, 9 November 2007 (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.
Pilotbob ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I hate to make a pest of myself, but I still don't agree that this block is justified. What behavior is specifically a problem and what Wikipedia policies does it violate that warrant a block. I have been blocked by someone who would say something like "shut the fuck up you whining twat" to another editor. That indicates a lack of maturity on the part of the blocker. Irrespective of this, it is wholly not justified. Pilotbob 05:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is being discussed at WP:ANI#User:Pilotbob and I don't see any consensus there to unblock.— chaser - t 05:49, 9 November 2007 (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.
For a single user account hell bent on vandalism, I can see the need for a block, but I don't see how a block on an established editor can be justified. The grounds for this block are as follows:
I think these are opinions and generalisations made by Guy for which no evidence has been given. This block is little more than an attempt to discredit and gag an established editor, and should be ended with immediate effect.-- Gavin Collins 17:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the
Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --
SineBot
07:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know that due to heavy vandalism on your userpage, User:Acalamari has indefinitely semi-protected your userpage. NHRHS2010 talk 00:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I thought you had departed. Even for a stubborn idealist, I don't hold much hope of persuading you of much of anything by text from the other side of the planet when workdays find you right beside two other hardline deletionists. Still, there's one thing that kept bugging me after you, fluffy and andalusian left, so I thought I'd comment on it by relating an anecdote:
Doctorfluffy remarked, as a reason you were doing AfD sprees, that editors had to be retaught to respect the rules.
Hi,
Over the course of your editing history, you have been at the center of a large amount of controversy over problematic AFD uses. This has included "deletion sprees" and a wide range of fairly likely notable articles. It's seen you being told many, many times not to do this, and you saying that you will discuss but continue doing so anyway. You've been reviewed and considered likely to be involved in puppetry, been at ANI twice, been told to keep away from such actions and agreed to do so. Despite all this here we are again, December 24, and five AFDs created. I have taken a look and thought hard how best to address this.
A number of your AFDs are well chosen. For example this this and the copyvio analysis and comment here. Unfortunately WP:ANI archives, and your talk page, also bear testimony that your poor judgement of when to file an AFD is also causing a problem. This often takes the form of:
One of these was kept at AFD a mere 4 weeks ago [1], and speedy refiling is usually considered disruptive under those circumstances. Amongst others you have filed for deletion are this, this, this, this, and this. You often file many AFDs in a day this way, and this has led to concern at ANI [2] [3] and blocks in the past, and comments by experienced editors to your talk pages and ANI that the concerns persist. AFD disruption is more serious than usual vandalism or edit warring - it wastes many peoples' time, raises friction and upset, and can dishearten contributors where an explanation would have done better. These are all extremely damaging.
At the same time some of your actions are positive, and I do not feel inclined to lose the benefit of good actions if possible. I therefore feel the following is the best approach I can think of, as a proposal:
If you agree, I would like you to restrict your own filing of AFDs and PRODs. I would like you to visit WP:AN and ask for someone willing to double check your suggested AFD and PROD filings, as a form of mentorship', to help you develop better judgement when to file, when not - someone you can post a list of articles to, and they will advise whether to AFD them or not, and why. In particular I would like you to stop filing AFDs for any article:
I won't insist on this, but I will say that my alternative was a serious length block, which might have been anything from 10 days to 3 weeks, which is exceptional for a 2nd block, in view of 1/ the high level of disruption and problems caused, 2/ the many warnings and expressions of concern, 3/ the refusal to get the point or learn, or change, 4/ the multiple calls at ANI and elsewhere suggestive of bad faith, problems and pupettry, 5/ the many editors who are familiar with your actions and have commented on their apparent bad faith over the months, 6/ your emphasis on deletion as your main contribution.
if this issue arises again, you have now had all the above warnings plus this, and would probably be blocked for a serious period, or " until the matter is resolved". I therefore strongly urge that you do not merely re-explain why it was all okay (I've read those and taken note of them), but seek mentorship -- someone to help you learn how and when to AFD, and become more capable of judging when to ask or discuss or hold back.
I leave the choice up to you. Please let me know if I can help in any way.
FT2 ( Talk | email) 21:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, My good Fellow, listen and I shalt telleth Ye a Tale of a Wiki that well comes All Manner of Articles relating to Fiction. What is This wonderful Place of Fantasy, You ask? It is the Annex, Haven to All fiction-related Refugee Articles from Wikipedia.
Before nominating or proposing a fiction-related Article for Deletion, It is My sincerest Hope that Ye import It to the Annex. Why do This, You wonder? Individuals have dedicated an enormous Amount of Time to writing These Articles, and ’twould be a Pity for the Information to Vanish unto the Oblivion where only Administrators could see Them.
Here is a Step-by-Step Process of how to Bringeth Articles into the Annex:
export.xml
” and save It. Leave the Window open.{{Wikipedia|{{PAGENAME}}}}
at the Bottom of the imported Article at the Annex, and Ye art now finally done! Keepeth the “export.xml” File for future Use.Thank Ye for using the Annex, My Friend — the Annex Hath Spoken 01:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The article Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election and its associated pages were deleted as of 9 Nov 2008, and the deletions are now being reviewed. Because of your prior involvement, please comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election. Thank you for your consideration! 20 involved editors are being notified. JJB 19:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for your good faith efforts at AfD and for all you do on Wikipedia! — Keithbob • Talk • 16:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC) |
You apparently didn't bother reading this nearly eight years when it was first posted on this very page. I'll repost it in hopes that you'll make the minimum effort to do so now:
While I believe you were acting in good faith in nominating this article for deletion review, you would've done well to take the advice provided for you at the help desk. The Peppers issue has been discussed, and discussed, and discussed again. As you have not brought up any new source information, nor any manner in which the previous concerns could be addressed, I have closed the discussion. If you can find a significant amount of source material which may allow a full encyclopedic article to be written, you may want to open the discussion later on, but please keep in mind that we've been trolled ad nauseum on this issue, so if you're going to bring a case it better be airtight. And calling people "wikinazis" will not help your credibility either. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
-- Calton | Talk 08:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Pilotbob. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Pilotbob. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)