User talk:Luigifan18/Archive1

Autopatrolled
Plutocow (talk) 08:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Minor edit checkbox
Hi, the minor edit checkbox should generally reserved for edits that are restricted to spelling, grammar or formatting corrections. Thank you. Bongolian (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Sysop
GeeJayK (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

For unbanning a Ken sock and a spambot
That one account was obviously a Ken sock if you were paying attention to the other recently banned Ken socks (as well as Ken's behavior in general), and you forgot to check the deleted contributions of the spambot (and also check the edit filter as well). Plutocow (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * How do I check deleted contributions? I checked "suppressed contributions" and nothing turned up. --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Special:DeletedContributions Plutocow (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I checked that and I still don't see anything that they've done. I also checked the block log and there is no indication of what their IP address is. --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You were supposed to look at the deleted contributions of "RefugioLau60995", the spambot you unbanned. The blocklist won't give you someone's IP, but it does indicate whether two banned users share an IP, as IPs only get autoblocked once and blocking another user with that IP would just reset that autoblock. Look at the blocklist, "AceDidNotDie" doesn't have its own unique autoblock, but the autoblock for "Lindell" is directly under it, but is no longer next to the banned "Lindell" account. This is because after "AceDidNotDie" was banned, the autoblock moved from after "Lindell" to before "AceDidNotDie", as the two accounts share the same IP that can only be autoblocked once. But all this is besides the point, even if "AceDidNotDie" is somehow not Ken, of which we have overwhelming against but anyway, even if it is a new user they should still be banned as that username was chosen specifically to harass another user, and we don't allow that here. In short, stop playing defense for obvious harassers. Plutocow (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not defending them, I just want to see whether or not there is actual evidence for wrongdoing before passing judgment. If they are a vandal or spammer and it can be demonstrated that they are, I have no objections to their being blocked. --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I just reviewed the RefugioLau thing and what the heck is that. Okay, let's leave that one to rot. --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * (ec)Unacceptable usernames, ban evasion, and harassment are all perfectly valid reasons to be blocked, and I have demonstrated that this "user" is guilty of all three of these things. There is no need to litigate this further. Plutocow (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Please stop
The ban reason specifically said to look at the edit filter. I'm tired of you constantly unbanning bad-faith accounts without even considering why they are banned. Please try to apply more foresight when using sysop tools. Plutocow (talk) 04:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've tried looking at the edit filter, and I can't get it to show me anything. --Luigifan18 (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The actual edit filter interface is really only useful for techs. The filter is represented as User:Edit filter, and because it has the bot group, its actions are hidden by default from recent changes. You can view the users blocked by it at this page. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * …Okay, but how do I confirm that a given blocked new account wasn't blocked by mistake without seeing any contributions from them or other indications that they're a blocked spammer making an attempt at ban evasion? --Luigifan18 (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's possible. Most filters are only viewable by the techs, so we don't really know how the filter decides to block most accounts. Supposedly, if they are legit and have been banhammered by mistake, they'll post to their talk page. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Quite a few of them aren't allowed to post to their talk page… --Luigifan18 (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That seems like an error, they should have the ability to post on their talkpage, according to the edit filter's user page. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about the people blocked by the edit filter there. --Luigifan18 (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Here's the filter log. Those accounts tried to spam the wiki but failed, and unbanning them will just give them the chance to do it again. Plutocow (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

So
Why do you like Luigi 23:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hard to say exactly. I've been going by Luigifan on the Internet for a long, long time. I guess I just like sidekicks and underdogs. --Luigifan18 (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Welcoming accounts
Only do it after the account made an edit, most registrations nowadays are spambots. In fact, one of the "users" whose talkpage you created is already a hit in the edit filter, so again, please don't be so naïve. Plutocow (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Copyright
Welcome to the absolutely not-confusing world of copyright! Every country has its own rules, but I guess that since RW is based in the US, it is subject to their rules. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Altering Talk page entries.
DON'T! Scream!! (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

ButterCashier
Check out my talkpage, that user is apparently a sock of a troll long banned from this website. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Don't fucking alter my User page, pillock!
That's all! Scream!! (talk) 13:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * All I was doing was adding a hyperlink… --Luigifan18 (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

All things in moderation
A case involving you has been raised at All things in moderation. Feel free to comment. Plutocow (talk) 01:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

When blocking suspected spambots
Generally, it's best to wait until they make an edit or are a hit on the edit filter before doing so. "First name and three random letters" is a common enough spam format that those accounts can be purged (User:Anthonyvax, User:Donaldlwe, those 50+ accounts that I just banned, etc.) but otherwise you should wait for evidence. Plutocow (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I noticed the accounts you had blocked were already hits on the edit filter, so my bad for assuming otherwise. Still, it's good advice. Plutocow (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Suppression rights
They are typically only used on things like doxing, potential libel, threats, and other nasty stuff. Using it because you don't like one of your edit summaries is an abuse of the permission. For more information, see RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive36. Plutocow (talk) 02:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

No hard feelings
I voted "yes" for sysoprevoke in your ATIM case. I don't think you'll make a bad sysop, but I really think it will be good for you if you just forget about sysop stuff for a while. Once sysoprevoke expires, if it passes, I'll gladly give you sysop again should you want it. If you're interested in sysop stuff after the sysoprevoke, I'd recommend to read the Community Standards (for deletion guidance) and the Sysop guide, and remember that RW sysop is not a big deal, just mark as patrolled edits that are not wandalism, revert if it is and give autopatrolled (I try to wait until a week to give this one, or give it immediately if they made very high quality edits, like the guy that remade the Tor page, they were a new user, yet I gave them autopatrolled) and sysop to users that have been here for a while (I personally wait until the user is at least +1 month, has a bunch of edits that are not like unfunny wandalism or just fixing small stuff). Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Another trout
User:Derek shepherd is clearly not Mike and banning accounts just because they follow a pattern of "first name and last name" is simply not acceptable. When Mike creates accounts that have a first and last name, it is because he is trying to impersonate someone, and cross-checking Google will make it clear that "Derek Shepherd" is the name of a fictional character, not someone that Mikey impersonates. I'll give you one last warning to be careful when using sysop tools, because I am this close to taking you to ATIM again. Thank you. Plutocow (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was just trying to be cautious. At the time of your post, I was actually busy reviewing the block log to see whether any accounts with a similar name had actually been banned in the recent past for causing disruption and trouble or if I was just imagining things. --Luigifan18 (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't block accounts to be "cautious", you block when there's clear evidence of abuse. Accounts with inappropriate usernames are one thing, but don't block accounts that haven't done anything wrong. Plutocow (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, User:WinstonBoxer is obviously not an impersonation of User:Wisconcom. I'll let this one slide because it is a spambot, but please use better reasoning when blocking people. Plutocow (talk) 05:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Stop it with baseless accusations of ban evasion - final warning
So, I noticed that you created a talk page for User:DewittNeumayer1. Never mind that you're not supposed to welcome accounts that haven't made any edits, and that the account was a spambot, but you left this wonderful message on its page: "Unless you're a ban-evading troll. I won't act until I have proof one way or the other, but other sysops might not be so kind." Thing is, this user had no edits and had just signed up, so that comment was completely unnecessary. If that was a legitimate user, you could have scared them off or made us look like paranoid jackasses. So I'm telling you for once and for all to stop accusing random new accounts of being ban evaders. If any ban evasion is happening, another of our sysops will quickly notice it and stop them. There is no need for you to great every new account with an accusation that they are a banned troll. Do it once again, and I will send you back to ATIM and I will push for an indefinite sysoprevoke this time. Plutocow (talk) 05:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, that was from September, sorry (apparently that spambot returned after a while). Still, you would do wise to remember that you are on thin ice regarding your sysop role. Plutocow (talk) 05:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Bro, you're not a cop and these aren't laws. Just tell him what he did wrong. Why are you acting so hostile? 05:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is like the fourth time in less than a week that this kid has abused sysop rights, it's really getting tiring at this point. Plutocow (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I’ll admit I haven’t been paying attention to such things. 06:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

All things in moderation
A case involving you has been raised at All things in moderation. Feel free to comment. --Andrew5 (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

US of A is a redirect for a reason
No need to change the hypertext. Vee (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Suppression again
I'm going to advise you to read this again. Deleting page revisions is not to be done for ordinary revisions and is only for doxing, threats, libel, or similar things that could cause actual harm. Generic trolling or spam isn't enough to justify deleting page revisions. What you're doing is technically an abuse of sysop powers, and while I won't take you to ATIM over this I would recommend exercising better judgement over suppression rights before someone else does. Plutocow (talk) 04:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The idea is so that the jackass can't come back later and look back on his past acts of wandalism like they're some sort of scar he left on the site. No. It's inane junk and it should be treated that way. No memory lane for jerks. I don't want wandals to have the satisfaction of their verbal diarrhea being in RationalWiki's edit history. They're bad and they should feel bad. --Luigifan18 (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, if you don't like it, you'll have to take up your case in CS. Plutocow (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

User:BOARshevik
“Boar” sounds like a generic name, so I don’t think it’s an impersonation. I advise removing the block, lest you scare off the newcomers. LongStylus (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's why I only blocked for 1 hour rather than infinity. It got a raised eyebrow from me, but there was room for benefit of the doubt. --Luigifan18 (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If there is room for the benefit of the doubt, you don’t block at all. Christopher (talk) 10:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

All things in moderation
A case involving you has been raised at All things in moderation. Feel free to comment. Plutocow (talk) 05:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

For your "muh Palestine autonomy" comment
Calling out antisemitism is a good thing but doing it by mocking an ongoing human rights disaster is just in really bad taste. If a Muslim said "but the Jews want to kick all Muslims out of Palestine because muh Holocaust", the bigotry reflected in that statement would be obvious, even if they are calling out a legitimate problem. Please be better than that. Plutocow (talk) 04:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Whoops. I was calling out the Arab-Israeli conflict more than antisemitism in general, which is why I brought up Palestine (we don't have an article dedicated to Arabs' seething hatred of Israel's very existence for some reason…). --Luigifan18 (talk) 05:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So, you were directly speaking on the human rights disaster in Palestine rather than making a point about antisemitism. I guess I gave you too much credit. How about this instead:

Plutocow (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, the situation in Palestine is the root cause of a lot of Arabic antisemitism, or at least the excuse they like to give for it. --Luigifan18 (talk) 05:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Anti-semitism has been a wordwide problem for long before the creation of Israel, but the occupation of Palestine has resulted in millions suffering under ghettoization as well as a blockade that denies basic resources like water or electricity to the Gaza Strip, as well as the fact that millions are still displaced from the initial invasion. That's not something you can use dismissive language like "muh" towards without being bigoted. Plutocow (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I know antisemitism is a longstanding, widespread form of bigotry that's held by many different kinds of people for many different reasons. However, I was referring specifically to Arabic and Muslim antisemitism driven by extreme butthurt over the de facto dissolution of Palestine as an autonomous state. Actually, "butthurt" isn't exactly the right term, as the Palestinians' situation does legitimately suck beyond measure, and Israel has been, for lack of better phrasing, very heavy-handed in trying to prevent Palestinians and other Arabs from posing a challenge to its existence. But, again, given that Palestine and other Arabic nations have expressed a strong desire to see Israel and the Jewish people erased from existence, and have carried out numerous terrorist attacks on Israel's people and infrastructure in an attempt to realize that desire, just how much can Israel be blamed for taking measures to suppress a very real threat to its existence? Obviously, Israel shouldn't be engaging in terrorism either, that's just wrong, and a lot of Israel's "self-defense" measures do seem to cross the line from "preventing the Arabs from being a threat" into "oppression of Arabic people". The whole thing is pretty messed up. --Luigifan18 (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's called national liberation. I'm not going to blame the people who've been invaded and oppressed for taking up arms against their oppressors. It's self defense. It seems entirely one-sided to place the blame for the violence entirely on Palestine, who are at least as much engaging in self defense as Israel is. (Never mind the fact this analysis of yours completely disregards the power dynamics of the situation. Israel is a modernized state with nukes. What does Palestine have? Homemade fireworks.) Vee (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is grossly non-empathetic of you Luigi to describe folks to which it is not uncommon to see their children killed in a bombing by the IDF as “butthurt”. Your analysis of the conflict isn’t apt to the complexities involved. It’s akin to describing the indigenous Americans who slaughtered settlers as savages and fundamentally bigoted for not wanting “America” to exist. It wouldn’t actually be true of all indigenous people, and from the perspective of indigenous people in the early days of colonialism their actions could be also be classed as “terrorism” but from there perspective it’s just “self-defence”. The narrative gets more complicated given different groups claim indigenous status to the land, but ancient Israel hadn’t existed there for centuries and the zionists in the 19th century who wanted to establish a Jewish state made zero claim to the land having any religious significance (which it should be said that canonically the west bank has none).  If people started trying to displace you and lay claim to your farmland as their property, you’d probably react violently as well. Doesn’t make it justifiable per se, but the response is still deeply human. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * …Did you miss the part where I said "'butthurt' isn't exactly the right term, as the Palestinians' situation does legitimately suck beyond measure"? --Luigifan18 (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

"Ignorant, inbred hicks"
Let's try not to throw classist remarks in our articles, ok? There's plenty of reasons to criticize the GOP and its electorate, let's not make class one of them. Vee (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Revdelling
As a general rule, we only delete things that actually need to be deleted; we don’t even delete talk pages of deleted articles. Simple vandalism can just be reverted, you shouldn’t also delete the revision unless it was doxxing.

You also shouldn’t do anything 50+ times unless it really needs doing, you must be aware of what it does to recent changes. Christopher (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The edits I recently deleted literally made it hard to go through the revision history one edit at a time, because the big div text covered up the "show changes" interface. --Luigifan18 (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That is reasonable, although there was no reason to hide the username and edit summary.


 * It’s most of your other deletions I take issue with. For instance, your most recent revdel aside from that batch https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RevisionDelete&target=Talk%3AFriedrich+Nietzsche&type=revision&ids=2503656 has already been reverted by.


 * Or deleting more run of the mill vandalism because “it’s nonsense”: https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RevisionDelete&target=TV+Tropes&type=revision&ids=2355284%2C2355124


 * Any sysop tool should only be used when it’s actually necessary. Christopher (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In a similar vein, comments like this are completely unhelpful and only end up feeding trolls by giving them attention. Just revert, block, and ignore. Plutocow (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Or like this. You enjoy having sysop rights far too much. Christopher (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * *shrug* Sorry, I tend to get a bit vindictive towards assholes. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Kasunex - protecting pages
I wouldn't bother at this point. Even if he does "break his word" and come back, you can't protect every possible target. In particular, admin protection on talk:thomas jefferson is completely unnecessary - autoconfirmed would be enough to stop any vandalism. Christopher (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thomas Jefferson is Kasunex's main obsession, so I think that page and its talk page (and related pages, like the Founding Fathers page) need to be shut out to all but people who can be trusted to actually be rational (and, more importantly, to not be Kasunex) for a long, long time. At least until he no longer has the energy, free time, or motor skills to continue with his temper tantrum. --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think a couple days protection is sufficient. If it happens again, we should probably consider more long term protection scenarios. There's a first time for everything, but until it happens again, let's assume that this is the exception and not the rule. Vee (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Another page protected - why? Are you going to protect every page on the wiki? You think if he decides to vandalise again and sees a page has been protected he'll just give up?
 * It's over. Drop it. Christopher (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

https is more secure than http
That's why I changed the link. Vee (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Jason Fung
Weird talkpage message aside, you definitely did the right thing unblocking Jason Fung. We don’t pre-emptively block the accounts of people we have articles on, even if the crazy ones; if you think about it, you should be able to see why that would be a bad idea. Christopher (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

HungSimmons9
The names that the spambots use can sometimes be very funny. I recall a spammer account from a while back using the name "Natasha Titsworth" with a bunch of numbers appended. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 19:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The best one has to be IsisDyke18771. Plutocow (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Protecting spam page names
At best, it's pointless, what possible good could it do? At worst, the scripts see the name appear in recent changes (which, last I checked, was indexed by search engines) and think the spam is working, directing more spam our way.

An exception could be made if something did manage to slip through the spam filter (and certainly if it happened multiple times), but there's no reason to do it as a general policy.

Christopher (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The idea is that it will slow the spambots down. --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't need to do anything to spambots besides blocking them. I've only protected a couple of spam pages, but that was when a bunch of spambots were getting past the filter and I found out why and resolved the issue. So, please stop engaging with spambots; don't vandal bin them, don't protect their attempted page creations (unless that target is a repeated issue), and especially don't create talk pages for suspected spambots. Just perma and move on, but even then an active tech will be there to handle problems caused by spambots and you really don't have to do anything. If you really want to help with the spambot problem, please don't do things that could give the spambots the SEO manipulation that they want. Plutocow (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn’t slow them down. Christopher (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you even listening to anything we're saying?
Seriously, when you continue to delete edits that aren't doxing, continue to leave overly emotional responses like this to generic driveby trolls, and continue to engage with spambots and treat them as an existential threat instead of a minor nuisance that is easily dealt with by the filter, all of which are things that you've been told multiple times to stop by multiple experienced users, it makes me wonder if you are even listening to the messages on your talkpage. I really don't want to start another ATIM on you, but your actions show a real lack of maturity and just end up encouraging people who we really don't want to be here. I really want you to improve, but in order to do that you have to actually listen to the people who have been here longer than you and actually reflect when people call your behavior out, because right now your actions are making RW moderation look like a joke. We all want what's best for the wiki and for you to be able to improve and mature, but in order to do that you'll have to actually try to improve. For now, I will recommend three pieces of advice: I hope you will reflect on your actions and behave better in the future. Plutocow (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * When dealing with trolls and spambots, do not engage with them at all, whether that be in their talkpage, your edit summaries, or the block reasons. Just revert, block, and ignore.
 * Only use rights such as protection and vandal binning if something is a continued problem. Do not use these rights preemptively.
 * Deleting edits is only for doxing and things that could cause legal problems (libel, death threats, etc.) Do not use them just because an edit is offensive or is driveby trolling.
 * I'm trying to deplatform the trolls. If they leave no mark on the wiki at all, that should discourage them. --Luigifan18 (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The trolls are already deplatformed by being banned and reverted. Deleting their comments, and especially adding emotionally loaded deletion summaries, only encourages them as they are after an emotional reaction. Trolls should be handled as coldly as possible. Also, the fact that you immediately ignored my advice and continued the behavior that you were called out multiple times for by practically every single user who is more experienced than you is not a good sign. Plutocow (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "Incel rage" is emotionally loaded? It sounds more like a matter-of-fact description of why the edits in question are unacceptable to me. --Luigifan18 (talk) 03:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * …Okay, fine, in retrospect, some of my remarks when blocking, deleting, or protecting are me being vindictive towards the trolls and/or me trying to give my fellow sysops a quick laugh at the trolls' expense… --Luigifan18 (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

All things in moderation
A case involving you has been raised at All things in moderation. Feel free to comment. Plutocow (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Coop
King Bowser K. Rool (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Feeding trolls
Please stop. You don't have to send an emotionally loaded "go into a volcano" at every Ken sock we encounter, it just feeds them. Also please don't leave messages on spambots' talk pages, they are automated scripts and not actual people and leaving messages on their talkpages may convince the SEO spammers that their spam is working. Plutocow (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The spambots themselves may be automated scripts, but somebody had to write that script. --Luigifan18 (talk) 04:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * They are, and then those script-writers sell off the bots to companies of dubious character. paid for his education this way, and  made tidy sums selling their services to others. Spammers work on the scale of hundreds of thousands, millions of messages sent, so it's simply impractical just to visit every site and observe the effects. Instead, it's more efficient to look at results in the aggregate and study charts of site traffic, Google searches, trading volume and share price if they're hawking stocks for a pump and dump, sales for altie meds, etc. The advertising field in general tends to think in the aggregate.


 * Are there are small fry do their own spamming? For sure, but the ones I've seen tried to peddle their crappy YouTube channel and often got a little bit conspiracy theorist when pushed back. DietMondrian (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Hate towards cheerleaders
I’m just going to say this, I understand being repulsed by Grawp’s nastiness toward cheerleaders because I’ve known my share of cheerleaders (both at work and years ago when I was in school), and I too have snapped at him a little. The difference is, you don’t know when to stop and employ DFTT. When I encountered him, let me tell you I’d wanted to tell him to fuck off for s long time, and I knew who he was, you did not, then he got the better of me when he insinuated I was a pedophile who has a “thing” for cheerleaders, so I walked away from site altogether for the moment and other folks took over the fight. That’s what you ought to do when a troll starts to get your goat. King Bowser K. Rool (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice. --Luigifan18 (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

What's with the weird block settings?
Christopher (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What "weird block settings"? I'm afraid I don't know what you're referring to. --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You know exactly what I'm referring to. I'd have thought you'd stop doing stupid shit with your sysop rights given that you're at risk of losing them. Christopher (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, that. I don't know for sure whether or not that user is a spambot, given that they only tripped the edit filter once on their own userpage and I can't actually see the content of the filtered edit to know whether or not it's spam. Thus, I think it's only fair to give them a chance to contact a moderator to plead their innocence, pending a tech or mod looking at the filtered edit to know for sure whether or not a full ban is warranted.
 * In fact, here's my personal policy for dealing with potential spambots in general. If someone trips the Blackhat SEO edit filter once or twice on their own userpage, there's a chance that it's a false positive, and thus they should have a chance to set the matter straight. A tech, such as, can see the filtered edit and is thus able to make an actual judgment call on whether or not to issue a permanent full block, TPA revocation and all, off of just one filtered edit, but as I'm just a sysop and not a tech, I can't see filtered edits, so I have to extend benefit of the doubt and let one of the techs take a closer look. (I used to use the vandal bin for stuff like that, but then one spambot I binned made a third filtered edit less than thirty minutes after I binned them, demonstrating that the vandal bin doesn't really work as an impediment to spambots. So I decided to change my procedure.) If someone trips the filter three or more times, though, the chance of a false positive is technically still present, but so close to zero that it functionally is zero, so I just issue a full block. If they attempt to create a junk or spam page even once, it's almost certainly not a false positive, so I issue a full block. --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You do not "have" to do any of this. No one is asking you to. In fact, multiple people are asking you to stop. Given your complete ignorance on this topic, why don't you listen? Christopher (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Then why not just leave those for Pluto? You know they're an active tech that is viewing the log almost everyday, there's no need to do anything if you aren't sure. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point. Though the partial blocks do at least flag the account for a tech to take a closer look at, I suppose. --Luigifan18 (talk) 04:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I love how you are continuing this despite being at ATIM for failing to listen to warnings. Really proving everyone wrong, aren't you? Plutocow (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm just trying to be reasonable and avoid completely shutting out a legitimate user who just happened to make a bad edit that tripped the edit filter. Given that tripping the Blackhat SEO filter almost always indicates a spambot, it's worth responding to, but there's still a possibility of a false positive as long as the filter was only tripped once or twice. I'll admit that I've been way too cavalier with revision deletion and that several of my block reason descriptions have been, to put it bluntly, disgusting (or at least way too vitriolic), and I'm going to make sure to be far more reserved with those sysop tools in the future. However, I think that the personal potential spambot policy I've come up with is a good happy medium between leaving a potential spambot to run completely amok and potentially flood the edit filter log until you or another tech can take a look at them and just mercilessly banning anyone and everyone who so much as puts one toe out of line brushes their foot up against the filter. (You may have noticed that I haven't ever questioned your judgment on fully blocking people for tripping the edit filter once or twice, even though I wouldn't be comfortable with doing that myself. That's because you have more experience and access to more information, so I think you're qualified to make such a decision, whereas I am not.) --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, you don't have to respond to the filter, since number one if their first edit was caught by the filter it's likely that any subsequent edits will be as well and two any of our techs can easily handle it. If there's room for doubt, don't do anything to them, if they are a legitimate user blocking them could frighten them away and if they aren't wwe don't want to give them any engagement. You have been told this many, many times; when will you listen? Plutocow (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm listening now, and thank you for your advice and consideration. I'll be more patient and cautious in the future. --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Coop, again
---Ozzyboo (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)