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).
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. (utcml ) 🔒 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. (utcml ) 🔒 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)
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. (utcml ) 🔒 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 (utcml ) 🔒 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 (utcml ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 00:35, 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. (utcml ) 🔒 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) (utcml ) 🔒 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 (utcml ) 🔒 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) (utcml ) 🔒 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. (utcml ) 🔒 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 (utcml ) 🔒 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).
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. (utcml ) 🔒 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).
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".(utcml ) 🔒 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 BushrangerOne 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 (utcml ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 23:19, 9 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? (utcml ) 🔒 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.
@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. StarMississippi 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)
