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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sorry about that. I wont do it again. Pilotbob (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As said above, please try to discuss controversial edits rather than just reverting back to them. Reverting is disruptive and can lead to you being blocked from editing even if you don't break the terms of the three revert rule. Sam Blacketer 18:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I apologize for the Wikinazi reference, but the article should be restored. Pilotbob (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This article is hella long and doesn't make any sense. There is no real world context and nothing is really cited. I hit random article and ended up with a bunch of nonsense about anthropomorphic cats living in the woods. Pilotbob 04:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthromorphic? Nowhere does it say that in the article, by the way. Because they aren't. And, instead of being a complete and utter bullshitting asshole, you could have just told us how to fix it rather than nominating it for deletoin! Honestly, it's you kind of people that make Wikipedia a bad site in the eyes of fans of anything. You just want to go around eleting anything you see without having a discussion beforehand about how to improve articles. If it's at all possible, go back to the deletion review, tell them not to delete, and ask for a period of time to fix it (Then put it back up for review if you still don't like it.). I'm trying to come to a compromise here... It's just nobody will pay attention to me on the deletion review page (Such as, we do have sources...) --~|ET|~(^{Talk|Contribs}) 11:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Comment The comments of ElectricTurahk and TakaraLioness are groundless generalisations for which there is no evidence. They forget that the Burden of evidence lies with the authors of these articles; without reliable secondary sources, notability is unproven. --Gavin Collins 08:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking if he'd help us fix them, not trying to prove the notability... TakaraLioness 11:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It is not disruptive to put warranted tags on an article. It is disruptive to remove all of them even though they are warranted. If you wanted to improve the article, you would consider the tags placed on it and attempt to address those issues instead of removing them. I would expect an administrator would understand this. Pilotbob 13:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's disruptive to put seven warranted tags on two articles when you have the same issues with another article at AFD that is likely to be kept.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What evidence do you have that this is disruptive? Have you any particular example with which to support your assertion? Please provide links to the articles invovled. --Gavin Collins 21:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A "no" would've been polite. :-( --Kizor 08:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore you, but I feel that I am helping clean up Wikipedia with these deletions. I would be happy to listen to your arguments to the contrary, but I don't wish temporarily stop helping to wait for your comments. I appreciate your concern and I'm sure we both want what is best for Wikipedia even if we disagree on how to approach it. Pilotbob 14:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 14:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This example is done by adding this tag to the AfD by adding the following text:

{{subst:delsort|Game-related}}<small>—~~~~</small>.

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)[reply]

Your welcome, and thanks for the info on sorting deletions. I will make sure to do that from now on Pilotbob 14:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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))[reply]

Sure thats not problem, just remember that once you put the page up for an AFD there are a few things you have to do. They are listed at the footer of the template for can be found here Template:AfD_footer Pilotbob 22:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOT, and WP:FICT. Pilotbob 21:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, now I know why Itachi is accusing you of bad faith, Pilotbob, compare his comment to Wrestlinglover420's. Looks like a sockpuppet to me. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this guy you are accusing me of being a sockpuppet for? If I don't know the guy, how can I be a sockpoppet for him? ItachiUchihaArticleForTheWin 23:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, you must realize that by deleting and merging all these articles per these guidelines, you think you are improving Wikipedia, but all you are really doing is pulling everything into a really cluttered up main page. This is why I do not use some hardback encyclopedias for research. I do not understand things that are cluttered up. The information in an article must be succint and to the point or I will most likely not be able to get it. I hope I have explained my reasoning for TRULY improving Wikipedia. ItachiUchihaArticleForTheWin 23:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This was necessary because I want each article to be considered individually. I have tried to nominate several articles together for AFD before and is difficult to get a clear consensus. Many items have different levels of notability so the consensus on 1 article may not match that of another. These discussions are about a community consensus and I feel that it is easier to get a good clear consensus by nominating one article at a time. These articles do not meet Wikipedia policy and that is my only concern. The community will decide whether these articles belong on Wikipedia, not me. Pilotbob 04:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. Look at the kekkei genkai AfD page. This has become a heated discussion that started right here, with the keep of Power Animal (Gaoranger) and has now engulfed our entire discussion in the oppression of User:Subdolous. Look what has happened because of your vendetta against WP. Sasuke9031 04:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you think this is all this is related to the Gaoranger article. I'm not angry that it was kept. I have no problem with the community consensus here. Kekkei Genkai isn't even related to the Gaorangers and the other articles are only loosely related. Also I don't appreciate the assumption of bad faith. Pilotbob 04:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, honestly, at the moment, the only article that I could see be kept that's decent is the longer character list, that I'm going to find someone to cut the crap out of in the next couple of days. I'd link to official and other sources, but it's too late at night to go searching in Japanese.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AndalusianNaugahyde 04:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Serendi^podous 11:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note the the deletion is a discussion and you should discuss this Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Discworld_languages. Pilotbob 14:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*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)[reply]

That just isn't true. You always disagree about my deletions and it is clearly bad faith. Pilotbob 17:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I'm sure you didn't mean this is a bad way, I just took it wrong. I'm blocked now for no reason, but we can still be friends when I get unblocked. Pilotbob 01:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Nope, they were basically snowballed. Thanks for the notice Pilotbob 17:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. Rudget _{Contributions} 18:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just did one more as a snowball keep - Peripitus (Talk) 06:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, I saw that coming Pilotbob 06:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but another of your AFDs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shirō Emiya‎, was closed as a keep. Regards, Rudget _zŋ 18:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I'm not worried about, but thanks for the notice. As you can see things aren't exactly going well for me today on Wikipedia :( Pilotbob 23:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I read your false accusations at ANI. I edit regularly anonymously. You really are not a nice person for doing this and I am quite angry at you, but I am willing to accept an apology and move on with no hard feelings. Pilotbob 02:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt fair at all. Pilotbob 01:21, 9 November 2007 (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).

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)[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.

It's reasonable. Tagging articles for AfD en-mass is seen as pointy, while discussion could achieve results without the need for a massive series of disparate discussions. In any case, I would recommend you read Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), which you use as a reasoning for many of your deletions, in which merging should and always be pursued as a possible avenue before bringing an article to AfD. Although you are free to be bold and act unilaterally if you feel it is proper, discussion is nearly always better. Regards, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point here, but some of these concepts cannot meet the standards set forth in Wikipedia policy. Merging can be a noble goal, but not everything should be merged. I could have put multiple articles together in an AFD, and I have tried it before and it ended up a mess. We may have different points of view but it seems heavy handed to block me for 24 hours as punishment Pilotbob 01:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, so I made a mistake in the nomination of Rincewind for AFD. That isn't a reason to block me. Pilotbob 01:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the articles that you are nominating for deletion, merging is certainly a more pliable and workable option than deletion. If there is a parent article, then there exists a merge target. If there is not one, then talk concerning whether one should be created is the topic that should be addressed. The problem with your activities is that it is immensely disruptive and gives the appearance of being pointy. An AfD consumes time, effort, and (more often than not) the sanity of editors of those articles you are nominating that could otherwise be put towards improving those articles. If you have a concern concerning the notability of the article, then bring it up on the article's talk page, or on the parent page, whichever is receiving more traffic or is appropriate. Wikipedia is not a race. We don't have to hunt down every single non-notable article and delete it on sight. For garbage and nonsense, the watchers at Special:Newpages take care of that (although with the decision to enable IP creation of articles again, this might turn into a false statement). If your concerns are not addressed, and you feel that the article definitely is not notable, then bring it to AfD. More often than not, however, your concerns can be addressed beforehand, making the stress and trouble of an AfD unnecessary. Regards, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me throw in my two cents by saying that its not the fact that you nominated several articles named the Fist of the North Star) that I worked on for AfD that bothers me, its the fact you basically just ran a random user scriptt to generate the AfD nominations and only provided a generic automated rationale for each nomination. Nobody likes dealing with a robot and ultimately your edits are more counterproductive than helpful. Jonny2x4 04:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you are bothered by my AFDs. I only nominate articles that I believe fail Wikipedia policy. I am not a robot and I hope you are not offended because I have no personal problems with you. AFD is a community consensus based process and I'm sure that if these articles meet or can meet policy they will be kept. I appreciate your concern and I'm sure that we both want to do what is best for Wikipedia even if we disagree on what that is. Pilotbob 04:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia also works on common sense. It will not kill you to limit your AfD sprees to about half and take one or two minutes to write out an AfD rationale that doesn't make it appear as if you're being deliberately disruptive. It also wouldn't hurt if you paid attention to what you're deleting. The block should show you that you need to reassess what you're doing. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked by a rogue admin so I don't think it indicates a need to reassess anything. However, I have to say that I should have been more careful in some AFDs (the wizard guy, and the power rangers series specifically) and I will make sure to review them better in the future. Thanks for your concern. Pilotbob 05:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That you automatically assess him as rogue makes it clear you do need to reassess something. You're nominating main character lists and clearly notable subjects with carbon-copy rationales. That indicates a lack of attention if I ever saw it. Your latest set in particular indicates extremely bad faith with other users. Not the way to go about, and more blocks will likely follow if you're not more careful. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is clearly a rogue. The recent discussion regarding Privatemusings on ANI and his lack of desire to resolve a conflict between himself and Privatemusings indicate a problem. Additionally comments on his talk page saying "edit some articles or shut the fuck up you whining twat" (from July 11 2007) don't indicate a good wikipedia administrator. He has also been blocked before due to wheel warring. Pilotbob 05:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that your unblock request was denied by another administrator, your sentiments can be proven false. Again, please realize that nominating articles en mass for AfD is disruptive. As per Someguy0830, you really aren't paying attention to the articles you are nominating. AfD should be taken seriously and only be used as a method when other forms of recourse are not available or not applicable. Practically all of your edits are focused towards finding non-notable articles for AfD, and while this is admirable, it is also not constructive seeing that your judgment in several of your nominations has been faulty. Take the suggestions of those here, many of whom have edited for quite a long time, and consider them. No one here is antagonistic towards you. We're simply telling you that your activities need adjusting. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I had something, but what he said works. Consider improving some articles once you get off your block. It's far more productive, and if you truly can find no way to do so, then maybe deletion is the answer. However, deletion is the last answer, especially in the places you're doing it. Also, I'd stop spamming the unblock template if I were you. They'll protect this page. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't agree with the last administrator. I don't think she fully considered the issues here. Regardless, I'm not going to request another unblock. I'll just let it expire. I think there are some things that I can change to increase my helpfulness to Wikipedia so I will be changing this in the future (for ex. not being so quick with the AFD). But it is more in response to your reasonable comments than any rogue administrator. Pilotbob

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).

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)[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.

Thanks for considering this Chaser. There isn't really any discussion about this block on ANI. It seems that JZG just has a problem with me (according to his writings there). I have no intention of disrupting Wikipedia and I think this issue is merely a difference of opinion. I don't think that warrants a block. There really is no reason I should be blocked. Additionally, I have never tried to disrupt Wikipedia and I find the suggestion that I would very offensive. I have been editing since 2005 and I have contributed to many articles anonymously. My intention is not to be involved in a dispute but JZG has left me no choice by blocking me. Anyway, I'm not going to spam this place up with unblock tags, but I just wanted to say my peace. Thanks and have a good night. I'm autoblocked so I can't even do my normal editing. Pilotbob 05:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with your nominating large numbers of articles without writing separate rationales or even apparently reading them. I am not alone in this. And the term you are looking for is rouge admin, not rogue. Now, instead of pretending that the problem is everybody else, what do you think about the sensible suggestion above that you slow down your rate to about half and take more time to read the articles and background? Guy (Help!) 09:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think those are reasonable suggestions and I will take them into consideration in the future. I still think this block is unjust, but I also see your point with regard to being more careful with AFDs. Pilotbob 15:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And just FYI, doctorfluffy and AndalusianNaugahyde are not sock puppets. I know them and they are individual people. One of them is right here next to me right now. (hes a little mad at me for getting him blocked). Pilotbob 15:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:

1. Tagging articles for AfD en-mass is seen as pointy;
2. nominating large numbers of articles without writing separate rationales or even apparently reading them.

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)[reply]

Gavin, it's currently under discussion at ANI, so a large number of admins are discussing/reviewing it right now - Alison ^❤ 17:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already contributed to the discussion there, but I feel I must go on the record here to say that this block is inappropriate; it is effectively a gag on an established editor who is being prevented from participating in deletion debates he initiated. This block could also be interpreted as an attempt to discredit an editor with a fine record; I see no justification for the block, as the justification is not reasonable. --Gavin Collins 18:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. They clearly don't believe me on the ANI discussion. Regardless, I appreciate the support here and thank you for bringing this to ANI. I think if they really reviewed the check user it would be clear, but obviously when a powerful admin gets involved there isn't much a normal user can do to dispute it. I would like to take this through whatever dispute resolution process is available as I have not been intentionally disrupting Wikipedia, but being blocked, it is impossible. It would probably be fruitless anyway. Pilotbob 22:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't think the results of the check user have been presented or analyzed correctly. Pilotbob 22:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that, as I said on AN/I. The CU results are sound. But of course, I'm biased, I'm one of the CU's that investigated you. I'll reiterate my advice from there, and elaborate. Make some constructive, well sourced, useful contributions of content in areas OTHER than where you have been so busily trying to get things removed. Write about planes, or the flight instructors, or about VMWare... We NEED more stuff in that area. For example the Ground school article doesn't exist at all, but is a vital part of the flight instruction process... In fact Flight training is pitifully short. There is a LOT that could be said there by a knowledgable contributor. You say you are a flight instructor. Share with us please! ++Lar: t/c 15:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about contributing to something other than AFDs. I'll stay off there for now. But I really am not a sock puppetteer. We were using a shared gateway at an office. Regardless, I know that we appear to at least be meatpuppets, but I did not intend to manipulate consensus in an unethical way. I do appreciate you being civil with regard to this. Pilotbob 17:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you were all using the same shared gateway at the same office on radically different IPs at the same time on the same topics, and it looks, walks and talks like a duck but is really a platypus. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I really don't find that the least bit plausible. You were busted blatantly sockpuppeting. It's a grossly inappropriate way to comport yourself on Wikipedia and if you really want to contribute usefully, then undermining trust on the project isn't a way to do that - David Gerard 15:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect you to change your mind, but I am innocent of sockpuppetry. Pilotbob 15:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think about it, I know why a checkuser would look weird. If you can see the IP for this edit. Pilotbob 15:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this one will be from the cable modem. The other from a T-1 Pilotbob 16:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate the help. That vandalism is ridiculous Pilotbob 04:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I am not an administrator, so I am not the one who semi-protected your page. I only reverted vandalism on your page. NHRHS2010 talk 11:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Back in last August, I was a regular editor who had just finished co-operating with an experienced admin in a tricky series of page moves requiring admin rights. As he was on dial-up, I had ended up co-ordinating the series and he'd just done admin actions where I pointed. Impressed, he asked why I hadn't planned on being an admin.

I answered (aside from worries about the time it takes up, which proved unfounded) that I had a certain disrespect of the rules.

His response was exclaiming that that's just the thing we need and offering to nominate me on the spot. That's how I got the mop. --Kizor _{is in a constant state of flux} 06:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 thisthis 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:

• Relisting very quickly after a previous keep
• Failure to assume good faith in edits by others
• Listing articles on very likely notable topics without checking, discussion, or patience - which are communal norms too.

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:

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:

1. Where there was a prior "keep" AFD, or any AFD within the last 3 months, unless exceptional cause exists
2. Where the topic is clearly likely to be notable to a reasonable person from the article, unless you have checked and can evidence why this is not so, and have discussed it on the talk page a bit.
3. In short, discuss, dont dive in.

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)[reply]

• Comment I must take issue with you assertion that [4] is disruptive in any way. Rod of Seven Parts is clearly non-notable, and Pilotbob, like any other editor on WP can challenge the existence of similar items that do not have content, context, analysis or reliable secondary sources. In this instance, I believe you are mistaken. --Gavin Collins (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominating the article less than four weeks after the previous nomination, regardless of the article's merits, is disruptive and pointy. It shows the lack of attention or research he applies to articles before nominating them, something that needs to change. The majority of his AfDs are overwhelmingly kept in any case. I believe FT2's proposal goes a long way towards rectifying this problem, and will address problems with Pilotbob's behavior. Simply because he can use Twinkle to bring AfD nominations en mass does not mean that he should. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AFD was no consensus and the item is clearly not notable. It is not likely to become notable either Pilotbob (talk) 12:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Regardless whether the previous AfD was "no consensus" or "keep," nominating the article four weeks after the previous AfD is pointy and disruptive. If there was a three month span between AfDs, then I would say you had a reasonable argument that any sources to demonstrate notability would have been found, but a one month span blocks any reasonable attempt to provide such sources. It just further shows a carelessness in your AfD filing that needs to be rectified, and I'd highly recommend you follow FT2's proposal above. Discussion would have averted 90% of your possible AfDs - a simple note or inquiry at the article's talk page or the relevant project's talk page would have produced a response. Now, if the response you acquire does not satisfy your concerns about the article's notability, or if you simply get no response at all, then filing an AfD is the absolute last recourse in that situation. However, I firmly believe that a suitable response would have been provided for a clear majority of the articles you filed AfDs over, and would have averted all of this drama that could have otherwise been spent writing articles and whatnot. Again, seriously consider FT2's proposal. It is to your benefit to change your behavior, else blocks may be appropriate to resolve this issue. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think Pilotbobs record on AfD's is excellent, and there is nothing pointy about nominating an article that falls outside Wikipedia's scope once, twice or more. Afterall, a surgeon would not wait to remove a cancer from a patient, and would attempt to do so in a timely fashion if the first attempt was unsucessful. Basically Wikipedia needs editors like Pilotbob to carry out a very important task: maintain the standards set out in Wikipedia's guidelines. AfD is not the last recourse; it was created so that articles that fail the guidelines come review. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Your comparison is fallacious because there is no deadline on Wikipedia, nor are we fighting any type of "battle" or "engagement" against cruft or non-notable subjects. Certainly, editors that are concerned about the notability of articles are important, but editors that disrupt Wikipedia significantly in this fashion are not welcomed. In any case, AfD is the last choice on the ladder, and discussion and research should always come before an AfD filing. Discussion before filing nearly always yields a suitable result, whether the discussion occurs at the article's talk page, the relevant project talk page, or some other medium. An AfD is a serious matter - stepping on people's work that they have volunteered their time and effort into writing is not a trivial thing, and as such, care should be taken before AfDs are filed. Yes, if discussion does not satisfy notability concerns, or if the subject is blatantly non-notable, then an AfD can be utilized. However, the point is that the vast majority of Pilotbob's AfDs could have been solved first with discussion rather than indiscriminately filing an AfD with essentially a carbon-copy rationale for each. Disruption in this manner is not helpful and simply needs to stop. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment On the contrary, we are loosing the battle against Fancruft, and this problem will not be addressed unless more Wikipedians like Pilotbob take a stand. The battle is effectively lost already; there is currently two versions of Wikipedia - the core version, and the mantle, which includes lots of articles with notability issues, such as fancruft. The fact is that anyone can cut and paste an article with endless plot summary but with no reliable primary or secondary sources in seconds, but it take ages to get bad articles deleted or merged. The fact that Pilotbob is bold seems to be your disagreement with him; his actions are entirely comendable. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thank you Gavin, I completely agree. I appreciate FT2's concerns, but many of these articles can't be fixed. I've been laying low lately because everything I do causes so much unwarranted controversy. I'm not trying to be disruptive, but be bold in cleaning up unsourceable information that detracts from the quality of Wikipedia. Pilotbob (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither of you are addressing the issue at hand, which is the disruptive nature of these AfDs. Pilotbob has every right to bring notability concerns forward, but not by spamming AfDs on multiple subjects in a small amount of time. Per your comments, your failure to assume any measure of good faith in improvements to these articles is rather revolting, and is a poor reflection on your conduct with these users. It will not harm you in any fashion to reduce your AfD load and open discussion on the matter to question the matter of your notability concerns. If you fail to elicit a response, or one that is suitable, then you can bring your concerns forward in an AfD, which is at that point, your point of last recourse, and you can justify your AfD by saying that your concerns about the article's notability have not been satisfied. In any case, whether you intend not to be disruptive is irrelevant because you are being disruptive by bringing forth so many AfDs in a short amount of time. Per FT2, if you continue your rapid AfD nominations, blocks may be appropriate to resolve this, regardless of your intentions on the matter. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I must disagree with you, as I don't think Pilotbob has neither created disruptive AfD's, nor a large quantity of them. It is not just a matter of him pointing to the guidelines and starting deletions; most of these articles have been tagged with various cleanup templates for ages; some have been the subject of extensive debate about their notability issues. If you have evidence of the contrary, give specifics rather than make blanket statements. I think that your labelling of Pilotbob could also be labeled as disruptive, because is it based on generalisations, not hard facts. If you have a particular objection, name your article and lets take the discussion there where we discuss facts, not just your opinion. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The original comments by FT2 would seem to have those facts. Bringing something up for AfD 4 weeks after it was already brought up is a problem. So are the other issues mentioned.Hobit (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of my AFDs were either deleted or redirected. I happen to believe that that particular AFD was sound, but I will attempt to avoid such controversy in the future because it is obviously going to get me blocked. Pilotbob (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:

1. Ye shall need at least three Browser Tabs or Windows open. For the first Tab or Window, go to Special:Export. For the second, go here. (If Ye have not an Account at Wikia, then create One.) Do whatever Ye want for the third.
2. Next, open the Program known as Notepad. If Ye haveth It not, then open WordPad. Go to “Save as,” and for “Encoding,” select either “Unicode” or “UTF-8.” For “Save as type,” select “All Files.” For “File name,” input “export.xml” and save It. Leave the Window open.
3. Next, go to the Special:Export Window at Wikipedia, and un-check the two small Boxes near the “Export” Button. Input the Name of the Wikipedia Article which Ye wish to import to the Annex into the large Field, and click “Export.”
4. Right-click on the Page full of Code which appears, and clicketh on “View Source” or “View Page Source” or any Option with similar Wording. A new Notepad Window called “index[1]” or Something similar should appear. Press Ctrl+A to highlight All the Text then Ctrl+C to copy It. Close yon “index[1]” Window, and go to the Notepad “export.xml” Window. Press Ctrl+V to pasteth the Text There, and then save It by pressing Ctrl+S.
5. Now go to the Special:Import Window over at the Annex. Clicketh on “Browse…” and select the “export.xml” File. At last, click on “Upload file,” and Thou art done, My Friend! However, if It says 100 Revisions be imported, Ye be not quite finished just yet. Go back to Wikipedia’s Special:Export, and leave only the “Include only the current revision, not the full history” Box checked. Export That, copy the Page Source, close the “index[1]” Window, and go to the “export.xml” Window. Press Ctrl+A to highlight the Code all ready There, press “backspace” to erase It, and press Ctrl+V to pasteth the new Code There. Press Ctrl+S to save It, then upload once more to the Annex. Paste {{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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

--Calton | Talk 08:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you are coming from and I did read this previously, but I do not believe this matter was not properly handled or considered in the past. Discussion relating to this has been hidden and it is impossible to reconstruct the events leading to Jimbo personally banning the discussion. I will endeavor to draft a proper article on Mr. Peppers and present it to DRV before proceeding further. Thank you for your input. Pilotbob (talk) 02:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's pretty apparent from your response that if you actually HAD read the advice you understood none of its words. And no, discussion relating to the this issue NOT been hidden, and was certainly wasn't the last time you tried this stunt. A cursory examination of your history indicates a short but spectacular career of being wrong -- and persistently so -- on fundamental issues of policy and practice, and an unwillingness to take advice. Your willingness to state outright falsehoods (like the silly claim of discussion being "hidden") or absurdities ("important"?) gives me no faith or trust in anything you say. --Calton | Talk 02:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is strange that you would post this, but maybe I am missing something. Can you can post a link to the history for the Brian Peppers article and its talk page? It seems to me that this data was hidden, but maybe I am wrong. This would be a great way to empirically show that the data has not been hidden or deleted. Thanks! Pilotbob (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Your laziness or inability to do the most basic of research -- especially of something you already knew about -- is not my problem. --Calton | Talk 09:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you have had over 2 years to post this hidden information have not. I'm guess it does not exist. Please let me know if something changes and the Jimbo releases the information Pilotbob (talk) 23:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing my response. I see that you have not provided the information that I was also unable to locate. It does seem like it was hidden and we both have been unable to locate it. If something turns up, let me know! Thanks for looking into it. Pilotbob (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]