User talk:All in

I reverted your changes at Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing because essays are entitled to express an opinion. Contrary opinions generally belong in an alterate essay that expresses a different view. Creating Wikipedia:Wikipedia editors are pieces of shit was not a good idea (see WP:POINT). I'll leave it for others to handle that but people with that approach should not be editing here (see WP:NOTHERE).

You have nominated six articles for deletion in the last hour: Deputy inspector general of prisons + Generational terminology in immigrant communities + Guinea Mills, Virginia + List of people who identify as sexually fluid + Münchberg (surname) + Tyler Tanner (disambiguation). Please do not nominate more until that batch has been processed. Mass nominations are often disruptive because they overwhelm available volunteers. Johnuniq (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Unlike some editors, I believe that when Wikipedia says "anyone can edit", they should also be including the people who believe Wikipedia should not exist, and/or who believe that there are inherent issues with Wikipedia that compromise its quality (such as over reliance on certain sources), etc

Therefore I disagree with WP:NOTHERE, as well as many other essays. (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 03:23, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand because you said it about libel in a deletion review; are you saying that this means people shouldn't revert libel? Sesquilinear (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia's processes/policy etc are deficient. I am in favor of the public or some member of the public actually suing Wikipedia for libel if there is libel on Wikipedia. I am in favor of Wikipedia correcting its lie that "anyone can edit". Wikipedia should make clear to its readers that its editors are just as much of a clique as the editors of other encyclopedias etc. One of the links I was recently shown says exactly that - "Wikipedia is a social club" Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a social club (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 20:32, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, maybe Wikipedia should try to figure out why volunteers get overwhelmed and/or why they are unavailable. (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 03:24, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think Wikipedia can solve the problem of there being a finite amount of time in a day. Sesquilinear (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

And I recognize that, which is why I believe Wikipedia should be more transparent with its readers about this issue. Instead of being self-promotional and trying to prove itself to readers. Real encyclopedias have paid editors, for example (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 16:03, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

There are already things like the WP:General disclaimer though Sesquilinear (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

... which most readers don't read...

and also, I'm talking about things like how those boxes that indicate article issues, are hidden when viewing on mobile, which is how most readers view WP. That hides WP's issues from readers (Never mind how some editors call it "drive by tagging" when editors like me identify issues and add templates to indicate such) (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 19:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Why are you removing PROD tags just to renominate the articles at AFD? You're making a lot more unnecessary work for editors. If you agree with the PROD tag just let it be. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 19:30, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

According to WP:DP#Process interaction , "Deletion discussion trumps proposed deletion, so for a page listed on both, deletion discussion takes precedence." Twinkle (which I used for those edits) seems to be programmed that way for that reason or for some other reason.

I don't agree that the work is "unnecessary". There are differences between prod and afd. (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 21:56, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

If you nominate something for AfD, the assumption is that you think it should be deleted (and if you don't, the AfD is malformed and should be closed as speedy keep). So there is literally no reason to ever remove a PROD tag if you agree with it. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@SuperPianoMan9167 that's not entirely correct. Someone could think the article should be deleted, but think that the deletion is controversial and should be subject to discussion/consensus, since PRODs are only for uncontroversial deletions. This is actually not an entirely uncommon occurrence. Katzrockso (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I interpret my "if you agree with it" as both "you think the article should be deleted" and "you think PROD is appropriate", but I did oversimplify. Thanks for the point. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Removing the PROD tag because you think the deletion is controversial is objecting to the PROD, just procedurally instead of on the merits. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@Katzrockso Apparently some editors don't understand the differences between PROD and AFD yet I'm the one that is wrong even though I showed that I read the relevant policy pages. (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 20:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@All in: You're not wrong. I admit that I oversimplified. I just disagree with your opinion that it is useful to convert PRODs to AfDs with nomination statements like "endorse PROD". It would be much more helpful to editors if you explained why you think AfD is a better choice when making the initial AfD nomination statement (for example, saying something like "this deletion is potentially controversial because...") SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I was attempting to do that when I started a new section on the Talk page of the Deletion policy page. I requested if there were more helpful ways to explain to editors the difference between PROD and AFD and why AFD can be applied to articles that already have PROD. (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 20:35, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Please note that disruptive editing was a large portion of the reason for the block, and I should have used that template instead of "not here", as not here was secondary to disruptive editing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:25, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

I believe that my contributions to AFD discussions have not been an issue. As for changing PRODs to AFDs, there is evidence that some of those pages will have a different result under AFD than they would have under PROD, therefore justifying the use of AFD instead. Regarding my views, while I may have those views I have not made actual changes to articles that would be vandalism/disruptive/etc but rather I have been using the discussion processes to discuss suggested changes. (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 00:01, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Request fails to address the reasons for the block. Take the time to read and understand all the discussions above and below here on this page and at AN/I. Take a breath for a few hours and then re-read through your own recent contributions. If you ask for another unblock make sure you address how you understand why your editing was disruptive and what steps you will be taking to address that. Mfield (Oi!) 01:54, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

---

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

I think you must have a different understanding of what disruptive is if you don't consider it disruptive to remove a PROD tag and create an AfD in the same edit just so you can slander the editor who placed the PROD tag as "anti-United States and/or are from outside the United States." You've simply refused to address that despite three editors including myself challenging you about it. If you can't work with editors from around the world on a global encyclopaedia based on their usernames, you can't edit Wikipedia. AusLondonder (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I have specified several times that Twinkle removes the PROD tag, and if someone would like for me to restore it I would like for them to show where WP:DP says to do that, on the other hand, as I have quoted several times from WP:DP, "Deletion discussion trumps proposed deletion, so for a page listed on both, deletion discussion takes precedence.", which suggests Twinkle's programming is actually correct, in that if there really were both a PROD and AFD on a page the PROD should be ignored anyway with AFD being used. (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 00:12, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

If you think the article should be deleted, don't remove the PROD tag, as that aborts the PROD process and forces the article to go to AfD. You're not making a lot of sense here. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

There's a specific template to specify you agree with the PROD, {{Proposed deletion endorsed}}, which you can add via Twinkle. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

But that's the point I don't necessarily agree with the "PROD" I would like the article to go through the AFD process. Both can result in deletion but there are differences between the two processes. (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 00:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

...huh? Could you explain why you think the articles should be deleted at AfD instead of being PRODded? If you open an AfD, I can safely assume that you think that the article in question should be deleted. If both processes will ultimately result in deletion, why AfD and not PROD? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Because AFD requires consensus while PROD has just a nominator and a deleting admin (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 00:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Also some of the AFDs are having a result other than delete, which means it was right to change PROD to AFD (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 00:35, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Responding to both of your points.

1. PROD requires consensus as well, just less explicitly. Consensus is assumed when there is no evidence of disagreement. No one removing the PROD tag within seven days demonstrates an implied consensus to delete the article.
2. Any AfD opened with the intent to do anything to the article other than deletion is malformed.

SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Again, I am going by what the actual policy page WP:DP says, not necessarily your interpretation of it. For example, PROD deletions can be undone by request, but AFD deletions must go through DRV. That is one of the differences. There are also other differences, that may warrant the use of AFD rather than PROD for a specific page. (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 00:52, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

You're now acknowledging you removed PRODs and immediately started AfDs to make the point that you "don't necessarily agree" with the PROD process. That's the definition of disruptive editing. AusLondonder (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

No it is not to make a "point" it is because for the specific articles selected I believed that the AFD process was more appropriate for them (as stated in the discussions themselves) (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 00:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

If I disagreed with PROD as a process then it should have been done to all articles instead of specific articles (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 00:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

"for the specific articles selected I believed the AfD process was more appropriate (as stated in the discussions themselves)" - that's not true. Today you nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Tanner (disambiguation) with the rationale "endorse PROD". AusLondonder (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, to indicate that I agree with the reason for prod (because AFD requires there to be some kind of rationale provided) (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 03:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I also don't believe it is fair to indef block me just because I am unfamiliar with GNIS or whatever "source" that was. I am willing to retract offensive statements but I also don't believe that it warrants an indef block. (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 00:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

You've still failed to address your unacceptable personal attack in the AfD rationale because you think I'm not American at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guinea Mills, Virginia. You say you're unfamiliar with GNIS yet you removed a PROD tag and started an AfD in which you specifically clarified what GNIS is putting United States Geographic Names Information System in brackets. So you know what it is. AusLondonder (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Your rationale specified that GNIS is an insufficient source, but apparently consensus is on your side and I am unfamiliar with GNIS (I thought it is reliable but apparently not) so I apologize for that. I don't really know what it is, but a lot of USA-based articles use government sources and I thought GNIS was one of those (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 00:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this addresses the sentence about being "anti-US" though. Sesquilinear (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

I would like to be unblocked, I understand that I should not call volunteers pieces of shit, and I also will avoid removing PROD tags when nominating pages for AFD (and I would also work on getting the relevant policy pages changed to specify this). I note that one of the links provided to me regarding edits says to "avoid mass nomination because that overwhelms processes", I will try but I also don't believe I should be held responsible for knowing exactly how much can be processed or not. (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 04:06, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Given the severe problems with your editing, I suggest you take the standard offer and re-apply in 6 months time. PhilKnight (talk) 05:30, 9 March 2026 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I would like to be unblocked, I will refrain from calling people "pieces of shit", I will make sure PROD tags are not removed when I add AFD tags, I am willing to work with other editors to change policy/guideline where warranted. The previous unblock reviewer suggested I wait 6 months but I believe that it is not necessary to wait that long. I will also avoid making assumptions about other editors such as "anti-America".(u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 20:08, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The fact you believe that it is not necessary to wait that long makes it clear that it is, in fact, necessary to wait that long. You currently have made it abundantly clear that you are either here to troll us or you are not capable of productively editing. That doesn't get fixed overnight. Step back, try editing on other Wikimedia projects, and come back again in six months. Note that if you instead request unblock again in short order your talk page access is likely to be revoked. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:12, 10 March 2026 (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.

Note: This doesn't address you making assumptions about others being "anti-US". I'm not an admin, but you've failed to address that in every one of your unblock requests. — Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 21:22, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok I will not make assumptions about other editors (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 23:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Star Mississippi 02:51, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I've restored talk page access following UTRS appeal #111379. -- asilvering (talk) 06:33, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Ordinarily, I would be required to leave the unblock requests on my talk page while I am blocked. However, what is the procedure for that one unblock that was requested by a different user? I should be able to remove it (and revert their vandalism), right? (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 01:31, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Declined appeals usually need to stay on the page. I suspect it might have to stay since it's clearly marked as coming from another account, but I'm not 100% certain.

@Star Mississippi can you please help answer this question? Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet, @Mfield beat me to it, but I'm fine with the removal. If it's a policy, this is an excellent use of IAR. Star Mississippi 02:12, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Great, thanks both! Blue Sonnet (talk) 08:26, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

For the avoidance of confusion, I have removed the unblock request by another editor. Mfield (Oi!) 01:56, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Please do not add original research to articles as you did to Tyrone (name). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Οἶδα (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2026 (UTC)