User talk:All in

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed 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 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your speculation about AusLondonder's username at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guinea Mills, Virginia is highly inappropriate, and I suggest you retract it. The location of an editor has no bearing on their ability to edit competently about any subject. Absolutely nothing about the username indicates any kind of "anti-United States" sentiment that could negatively affect the quality of their editing; I'm not sure how you even came up with that accusation. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

... 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)[reply]

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. Moxy🍁 02:59, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your totally bizarre behaviour in the last 24 hours has not gone unnoticed by many editors. You removed the PROD tag I placed on the one-sentence Guinea Mills, Virginia without comment and then immediately nominated it for deletion and used your deletion rationale to launch some weird nationalistic tirade about me, writing "their username suggests that they are anti-United States and/or are from outside the United States". What part of my username suggests I am "anti-United States"? AusLondonder (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[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).

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

---

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

---

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

I 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

---

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)[reply]

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)[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.