RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive62

The Return of Kasunex
Kasunex is at it again. I need backup! I’m literally doing all the work on the toilet right now. LongStylus (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like got involved and things have quieted down. Bongolian (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he’s only vandalising because he’s being prevented from airing his (at least somewhat justified) grievances legitimately.
 * The whole situation is a mess, wasn’t handled well at all. Even with the vandalism, a permaban is excessive if you’re actually following the blocking policy. Personally I’d support removing the permaban, with a 3.6 day block for the vandalism to keep everyone happy. But it’s all symbolic; he’s said he has no interest in participating in the community. Christopher (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. There is no excuse for firing up an address-shifting VPN and attacking the wiki over and over and over for many hours. This wastes everyone's time and points to profound immaturity on the part of the troll. We don't need a contributor here who acts like such a fucking baby. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 16:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Understandable, I'm probably focusing too much on the initial incident. Safe to move on at this point. Christopher (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * (EC) I in fact agree and disagree with both of you. This could have been handled better by the four or five users involved in the shitstorm last night (I'm just reading the whole thing right now, so I don't know exactly who participated), but when you start to vandalize the Wiki than you're wrong. The best thing to do was probably join the discord server, as they in fact did, or send an e-mail to a mod, but there are no excuses to troll and vandalize our pages, even if you think you're been treated unfairly. Ban evasion is not the only way to fix mistakes, and definitely not the best one. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 17:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Let’s not forget that we are talking about a user who within their first post was to criticize our page for assuming that a middle-aged slavemaster having sexual relations with one of his slaves likely starting as early as when Sally was 14 years of age with Jefferson having owned her since she was a small child was rape. A user like this is owed civility from the wiki who banned and then celebrated the death of a user who defended pedophillia? Unbanning this user is just going to make myself, Vee, and Plutocow the targets of continued harassment. It will also express poor judgement given that is making exception to real conduct violations on this site relating to vandalism and ban evasion. If we are so inclined to give them sympathy, why not do so for all the racialists and conservapedia editors we have banned from this site? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * [EC] The first step to appealing a block is to leave a message on your talk page, they were prevented from doing that. But you're absolutely right, even then there are plenty of other options. Christopher (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, I need to appeal a block on the Team Fortress 2 wiki. Any suggestions?
 * But in all seriousness, they made such a mess last night that I don't think they should be allowed back for, oh, 10 years? That should be enough time for an edgy teenager to grow up and get an actual life. --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if we decide to ignore the fact that, as OSD said, "we are talking about a user who within their first post was to criticize our page for assuming that a middle-aged slavemaster having sexual relations with one of his slaves likely starting as early as when Sally was 14 years of age with Jefferson having owned her since she was a small child was rape. A user like this is owed civility from the wiki who banned and then celebrated the death of a user who defended pedophillia?" Their response to the trollcollapse was to remove it multiple times, and then threw a hissy fit when they were blocked from the talk page for a couple of hours for removing the collapse in question. They also proceeded to harass OSD, Plutocow, and myself. I wasn't too bothered by it all, but the point still stands. Vee (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

While it probably could have been handled better at some point, I don't think that the action taken by Plutocow last night in turning off BoN edits was wrong for a short-term basis until it's daylight for a majority of editors. Not only did Kasunex engage in large-scale vandalism, Kasunex attempted to blackmail RW with ongoing vandalism unless they got their way with punishment of certain editors (RationalWiki talk:Chicken coop). Permaban is necessary in this case for keeping chaos out of RW. Bongolian (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a reason the template exists smh. Vee (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Don't feed the troll" generally entails not replying to their comments. Adding trollcollapse to a talk page doesn't do much good if people are still going to have a protracted argument. Christopher (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's fair. Vee (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The situation is getting so out of hand that the Godzilla Threshold may have been crossed. Even Ken, Mikemikemev, Kamen Rider, and Oliver Smith aren't this freaking persistent (well, okay, I wasn't here for the initial fiascos with Ken, Mikemikemev, and Oliver Smith, and I'm not sure when Kamen Rider started his campaign of "revenge" against cheerleaders, so I dunno if I witnessed the start of that issue). Over the course of 12 hours, we've had to block over 100 IPs and revert hundreds of junk edits adding nothing but butthurt demands for and a handful of other users to be ejected from RationalWiki. So yeah, I think a full temporary shutdown of the wiki so that BoNs can't participate for a while might be warranted. Plutocow's edit filter helped, but somehow the twerp found a way around it.
 * I used to wonder why some wikis, such as WiKirby and Bulbapedia, don't allow people to just create accounts and instead require accounts to be "requested". In the wake of this fiasco, I'm starting to see why such paranoia about new users might be necessary. Especially for a wiki like this one, which dedicates itself to (among other things) squashing misinformation and puncturing overinflated egos. We're not pushing a distorted reality like Conservapedia — we're pushing actual reality, which is something that cranks tend to dislike. Yes, we absolutely shouldn't go to the crazy extremes that Conservapedia does in shutting out dissent, but when it comes to known troublemakers like Ken, Mikemikemev, and Kasunex, we should be open to taking more permanent measures to stop them from being problems. --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * He is gone. There's no need for any further action unless he comes back. Christopher (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Seconded. As I wrote on Luigi's talk page, let's assume this is the exception and not the rule. If it happens again, then we should consider more long term scenarios. That being said, I think locking account creation entirely is a bit too overblown. Vee (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)



So, first, I understand that Kasunex had some eyebrow-raising comments like "the majority of wikis are run as defacto oligarchies that feign public editing but with page guardians who undo even the most reasonable of changes if they're made by someone outside of or lower ranked in the community" but they still left behind a big comment detailing on the aspects of the page that needed change, which is a much better improvement than the usual vague summaries of "this article is a hatchet job written by IRRATIONAL individuals on a RATIONAL wiki" and I thought they brought up points worth addressing, even if a mild confrontational attitude was sprinkled in. Only Sort of Dumb made several mistakes that contributed to the mess here, which is the first thing, leaving behind a quick snide comment that didn't address anything, mocking the user, and completely dismissed the entire post, which of course Kasunex has left behind an angrier retort. The problem is that, it's not persuasive at all. The follow-up did explain a little better but it's mostly a block of a quote from someone trying to cast Jefferson as racist, which the initial comment did acknowledge he still is, but just isn't racist AT THE TIME. The second rebuttal is "The Monticello Association is literally run by the Thomas Jefferson foundation and consists of his white descendants. That's a not an academic unbiased source to contradict the article with.", it's not a good one, all it does is accuse the association of bias. I do think there was a follow-up there on why it's not reliable but when I looked into it (that is, reviewing Wikipedia, and would've looked into other spots if it wasn't so late), I'm not seeing a full picture of it and I've wondered if you got it mistaken with the TJHF (Thomas Jefferson Heritage Foundation, something with "heritage") which DOES dispute all of this and criticized the TJF for taking the tance, as opposed to the TJF (Thomas Jefferson Foundation) which is more milquetoast about that stance and sides with historians. It's a confusing statement to me.

It's not like you can't rebut anything. The passage going "Jefferson was thrilled by the idea of child labor" was disputed as needing a source, which IS covered in the citation right before it, but perhaps not clearly enough, for instance. It's an easy rebuttal too. I understand that the giant comment can come off as gish gallopy but this is a quick runover and I don't think Kasunex would dispute that if you said this, but it's still possible they could pivot and dismiss the source all together for reasons... but that never happened, just speculating.

But then Kasunex does seem to dispute that accusation of bias, going "yeah it's biased, but the article already cites it and I have other sources to show" (on top of another angry, aggressive comment accusing Only Sort of Dumb of bad faith and using ad homenium" I feel like I'm talking to a Conservative right now[...]") which the response I would've went would be "okay show me" but Only Sort of Dumb goes into the retread that Jefferson is racist and held slaves which is morally reprehensible but that's not the disputed point here. It's irrelevant. They did try to tie in the point to the idea we shouldn't whitewash the thing but I really think that deserves a more thorough rebuttal not jumping to a conclusion here that things are being whitewashed.

Then Only Sort of Dumb made a big mistake here accusing Kasunex of rape apologia and being "disgusting". That's jumping right to assuming absolute bad faith right there. It's a baseless ad homenium. It poisons the well. It shouldn't have ever happened, not this early in the discussion when benefit of the doubt has definitely not exhausted. Then Kasnuex responded accusing Only Sort of Dumb of (if they were aware of the bias, might've helped to at least bring that up) and then levied another ad homeniem "a pretentious reactionary ideologue". By that point the discourse has fully poisoned and won't recover. I'm seeing more takes about is if this relationship is rape (I take a more cautious approach given my lack of knowledge and just not being a historian but I lean to rape) or not, just more personal attacks sprinkled in. Kasunex did bring up that "Marital rape wasn't a concept and women had next to no legal rights." though that was rebutted that feminist theorist did find that relationship problematic. The final thing I guess I'll bring up is the retort by Kasunex, a really strange flex "And of course I haven't read feminist theory. I think for myself because unlike you, I actually do support critical thinking." It's weird to flout ignorance on a subject and the follow up with "I think for myself", it just makes you anti-critical thinking. The final remark "Critical thinking isn't 'being woke'." really seals my perception of Kasunex though, it's just a garbled anti-woke talking point and does quite a disservice to my benefit of the doubt, but it still isn't erased yet especially when I wasn't particularly enlightened by this discussion to begin with.

Then Vee makes a snide comment that probably shouldn't have been made, with Kasunex disputing it, brings up a dog ownership analogy. Plutocow has a completely bizarre retort, "Ya do realize that having sex with a dog isn't considered, you know, consensual? Ye gods, you are dumb." which the analogy doesn't even go into bestiality... like... what????? Completely misread the comment.

The very last comment by Only Sort of Dumb has some thoughtful sprinkles though "Charles Mills given the whole thesis of white ignorance is that white supremacy overwhelming puts white people in positions of power to curate and provide the sources on history so as to construct a narrative that is favorable to themselves" and I kept that in mind when I tried to process whatever information I was trying to gather here to get a position though again, accused Kasunex of perpetuating white supremacy by taking a neutral stance rather than dispute the details (I personally would always double check any claim or conclusion being made and even dispute details even if the general conclusion is there), jumps right to that, and that completely muddies the entire thing.

Anyway I agree with the assessment that "The whole situation is a mess, wasn’t handled well at all." It's really unfortunate how it turned out. I've spent enough time reviewing the discussion, I've yet to review the logs and timestamps. The trollcollapse probably should've been accepted (in hindsight) even though I personally didn't agree with it nor did I think the edit summary by Vee helped ("don't bother wasting time with a guy who thinks having sex with your slave isn't rape").

My two takes:
 * Only Sort of Dumb, though frustrated and disturbed, should've had a higher threshold for assuming good faith and benefit of the doubt and possibly could've had a longer constructive argument, but went right in with bad faith accusations with little evidence at the time to back them up. It was mostly counterproductive and unconstructive.
 * Kasunex is in a much rockier spot than when they started after trying to disrupt, harass, vandalize the wiki, which is a huge no-no. I don't particularly care about the followup comments on their talk page by their IP (just a diatribe of accusing RationalWiki of authoritarianism, censorship, etc. also claiming to be the most civil person in that discussion who didn't insult anyone - they were not, they did insult). Not worth addressing. They've sealed the deal for me, and they should remain blocked for this level of disruption.

19:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The point is Jefferson was in a position of power over Sally Hemmings, a slave girl in his custody, and there's indications he was having sex with her as early as the age of 14. Accusing OSD of presentism is just an escape hatch, a cop out that ignores the very real, very problematic power dynamics at play wrt Hemmings and Jefferson. Kalsenax's rhetoric seems to more than one user to be whitewashing Jefferson's actions. Vee (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The point about the bestiality comment was pointing out how needing to compare the relationship between Hemmings and Jefferson to that of a dog and its owner points out the inherent problems with that relationship. I guess I could've been more clear with that, but their comments were really disgusting by that point. Plutocow (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Vee: That could've been the point being made. It's a valid one, but you don't have necessarily accuse people of rape apologia or whitewashing in the process, just bring it up and see the response. Presentism IS a real issue that can obfuscate historical context. It does not necessarily mask power dynamics either. In other words, you can be aware of presentism and still conclude that power dynamics were a major nasty wrangle in that relationship. I always had my doubts if presentism was being practiced or not and those doubts were never eased. Yes, bad faith people WOULD use presentism as a cop-out but I didn't see the bad faith being displayed at the time; the whole "I'm anti-woke and I don't read feminist theory" though, since it was tangential to the argument, was a weird flex but not enough evidence they were arguing in bad faith). Assume good faith, again. 20:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Plutocow: I don't think bestiality was the intended analogy. Basically trying to talk about a distinction between what you're allowed to do and what you did do. It's technicalities, but maybe the comparison was odd? I don't know, that discussion was past the point of redemption. 20:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * (EC) I could have not written that edit summary in such a way, I guess. Either way their comments seemed to me to be whitewashing and concern trolling. Some of the comments they made in their gigantic OP doesn't help remove that impression, as you (LGM) pointed out the weirdness of them. I will endeavor to assume good faith in the future. Vee (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's easy to flub edit summaries too. I also understand your initial impression. But yeah it's all good.
 * One more thing I want to point out, we might be dealing with a rereg, so your suspicions may have been grounded, I'll concede there. The user later may have admitted being a sock of an existing user. I DID insinuate this earlier, but removed my phrase as I thought was irrelevant and possibly unfounded paranoia. 20:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * [EC]Someone can attempt to remove criticism from an article, ie whitewash it, because they genuinely believe the criticism is inaccurate or unfounded. It is entirely possible to make this attempt in good faith (ie by going to the talk page, which Kasunex did). Christopher (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you saw that edit because I linked to it on Kasunex’s talk page, you’ll have seen their response stating it was a reference to their working in history academia. Impossible to know if they’re telling the truth of course, but worth mentioning. Christopher (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the pointer. It was difficult reading the talk page; I just wanted to skim through it after knowing the disruption this user caused. 20:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't research the details too much, but a quick Google on the "rape" term shows that even Monticello acknowledged the "rape?" term in a 2018 exhibit regarding the Jefferson-Hemings relationship. It's a description that seems to make many historians uncomfortable (possibly because a long-term master-slave relationship is not what one intuitively thinks of as a rape?) but asserting that no historians ever even thought about the term and rejected it outright is malarkey. I didn't consider that person operating in terribly good faith at that point and was just pushing apologia. (I do think the RW page is perhaps a little aggressive on this and some other topics, but I do not have any thoughts on how to improve the wording at the moment, and I certainly wouldn't want to whitewash).
 * The spammer was using NordVPN for at least some of the attacks and it seems like with this VPN you can grab many (all?) of the server names here (which would have to be web-scrapped and scripted to convert to an IP list, but that's not a big deal). There's sometimes ways to surgically target abusive open proxies if needed without shutting down all BoNs, moreso if some "unpopular opinions" I have were implemented, but in some cases even without such. BobJohnson (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * When is it appropriate to allege rape apologia on this wiki then? We jump straight away in response to overt racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. We have expressed zero tolerance to defences of pedophillia in the past, but now suddenly we are making exceptions? This is boiling down to a tone argument. I never actually assumed this user’s intentions was to troll, I never made the allegation. I assume they were being earnest, but I have every right to call incredibly harmful behaviour out in any tone I please. The “presentism” argument isn’t seriously accepted in moral philosophy btw, that kind of argument just explicitly assumes moral relativism. If we are going to be consistent about that then we might as well take slavery on the hold, and blatant antisemitism as “products of their time” unworthy of moral condemnation. Also presentism seems disproportionately applied to certain figures over others; we bend over backwards to accomdate the characters of Charles Darwin but don’t apply the same standards to someone like Karl Marx. If certain moral principles are to be a norm on this wiki, they have to be applied consistently and not only to people we decided to it’s okay to dislike arbitrarily. It’s a not a coherent set of implicit social norms.  - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I think some aspects of the current discussion should go to talk pages, or maybe debate space/essay space. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 21:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Luigifan18 (yet again)
This person is getting on my last nerve with their excessive use of sysop powers and at this point I'd rather have Andrew5 as mod than have Luigifan continuing to be sysop. This person doesn't even listen to comments on their talkpages; they've been told many times to stop abusing edit deletion powers by many different people but they just leave the same dismissive response ("You want trolls to leave a permanent mark on their wiki?") and continue their behavior as if nothing happened. Then, there's the problem of this user always emotionally reacting to trolls in edit summaries and block reasons, which is textbook feeding the troll and is another thing they've been called out multiple times and have never stopped. And then there's how they repeatedly preemptively use their powers by preemptively blocking or vandal binning accounts with no edits or edit filter hits or protecting pages for excessively long or even ones that haven't been the target of vandalism at all and yet again they've been called out for this multiple times and never listened. Not to mention constantly engaging with spambots, which is beyond rookie behavior and yet again, they were called out multiple times for this behavior and they never listened. I will start a vote for sysoprevoke in 24 hours because this is the third time in less than three months that they've been at ATIM for repeated misuse and immaturity with sysop tools and I'm done here. Plutocow (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * My advice to Luigifan18: Anything else, and your sysopping is regarded as abuse. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 04:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hang on, since when was I "engaging with spambots"? Generally, I put them in the vandal bin if there's still reasonable doubt that they're not a spambot (i.e. they only tripped the filter on their own userpage once or twice); anything more than that (or attempts to create spam pages) and I just block them. And while I'm defending myself, I should say a few more things…
 * I have preemptively blocked a few accounts, but only when I saw that they had hits in the edit filter or their username made it blatantly obvious that they were here in bad faith (such as Cerascow, which was clearly the same idiot making yet another lame attempt to impersonate Plutocow after going through Mercurycow, Venuscow, Earthcow, Marscow, Jupitercow, etc., etc.).
 * I’ll admit that I have probably gone a bit overboard with revision deletion, in that I have removed some revisions that are just small-potatoes wandalism, but I seriously don't think we should be allowing revisions like "f-word f-word f-word ad infinitum" or "violate your local cheerleader" to stick around at all.
 * I do sometimes get frustrated and vindictive when I find myself spending over an hour dealing with the same troll over and over again, like what happened with Kasunex a few days ago or the cheerleader hater tonight, but many of my "emotional" block, deletion, or protection messages are just me trying to deflate the troll's ego and give the other sysops a quick laugh.
 * I'm just doing my best to keep RationalWiki true to its mission and prevent wandals and trolls from ruining our site. --Luigifan18 (talk) 05:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You've been told many times that you don't need to deal with suspected spambots, the techs and filter deal with them well enough, and that vandal binning them is doing no good, not to mention you repeatedly creating talk pages for suspected spambots and protecting attempted page creations which is giving them harmful SEO engagement.
 * I'm not talking about spambots or trolls, I'm talking about accounts that have no edits, didn't hit the filter, and you consider suspicious just because their username is vaguely similar to someone else or because they have no edits (how scary). This can potentially scare away new good-faith users.
 * You've been told multiple times what revision deletion is for and you never listened. People have been unilaterally sysoprevoked for abusing those powers before, so I'm surprised you got away with that for so long.
 * You're not "deflat[ing] the troll's ego", you're giving them engagement which makes them believe that their trolling is working. It'd be one thing if you were snarky or dismissive but emotionally loaded comments just encourage the trolls more and you've been called out for it repeatedly.
 * You seem to be under the impression that trolls and spambots are existential threats to our site, when in reality they're at worst minor nuisances whose damage is easily undone and buried deep in the logs. Many people have sysop powers, so people can't get away with trolling for long. You acting like these trolls are super powerful, however, is inflating their egos and making them think they're "owning" the RW mods.
 * In the end, most of this is just the same deflection you've been giving us multiple times. I'm not in the mood for this anymore. You should really consider why every user who is more experienced than you disagrees with your behavior. Plutocow (talk) 05:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Having sysop buttons doesn’t mean one should feel obligated to use them all the time. I hardly even think about my sysop abilities these days. Luigifan should take a break. 07:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Bongolian (talk) 07:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I will add that telling other people to kill themselves (even if they are rape and slavery apologists, trolls, vandals or socks of banned users) is simply something that should never be done. We are better than that. Spud (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, this is why I support sysoprevoke rather than another warning. Bongolian (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I will admit that I have sometimes lost my temper with some particularly persistent trolls, and I'll make sure not to do that again. --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In my job I work with children, and even if one of them said something abominable like the trolls were saying yesterday, I would likely be fired the first time I replied with something along the lines of "kill yourself" or "you deserve to die." In past jobs in which I worked with adult customers, the result would have been the same. That said, this is your third round here at ATM, why do you think you deserve another chance? King Bowser K. Rool (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Because I'm trying my best to keep this site on-mission. I'll admit that I've made several mistakes, but I'm learning from them. --Luigifan18 (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry, but that’s an excuse, and I don’t do excuses. Everybody makes mistakes, like blocking the wrong user and promptly apologizing, or forgetting to include something on an order and having to go to another school to “borrow” it from them, telling someone you know screw all about to kill themself is more along the lines of you did something really stupid now go call your union rep. Not that I have a bleeding heart for the trolls, especially ones as vile as Grawp, but to play devil’s advocate here how do we know that troll wasn’t an 8 year old kid with a developmental disorder and just took your advice and hung him/herself with an Ethernet cable? We don’t, because that’s the anonymous nature of the net, never know who’s on the other end of the fiber optic cable. King Bowser K. Rool (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Scream!! (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It is also a problematic excuse because nearly everything here on RW except for technological back-end stuff is collaborative. It's why we have so many sysops (mobocracy), and why we have 6 moderators, not a single moderator-in-chief. It's like Luigifan18 is saying they're on a mission from goat (parallel to Category:We're on a mission from God). Bongolian (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not making excuses — I know that what I did was awful, I feel bad about doing it, and I won't do it again. --Luigifan18 (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at the block log, that troll engagement is some Oxyaena level stupidity. I’ve been a Wikipedian for a long time, and I concur with everybody else here, that kind of conduct encourages the troll (look up edgelord). Not to mention, that appears to have been a specific LTA, and you’ve probably just ensured that this critter will stick around for a month at least (there’s a specific troll that, if I remember correctly from my lurker past life, used to like to harass User:Ex-Troll Cheerleader and even though she’s long gone they like to say nasty things about cheerleaders anyway). King Bowser K. Rool (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Plutocow should stop negative comparisons to other people...--Andrew5 (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Luigifan jumps at every excuse to use their sysop tools, whether or not it will actually help the situation. They are incapable of listening to reason. Sysoprevoke seems like the only solution. Christopher (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to agree with Christopher. I know RW prefers warning to sanction...but I think we're past that.-Flandres (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * (ec)Actually, based on my behavioral observations at best, this person is of the same mindset as banned user User:Oxyaena and at worst a sockpuppet of said user. With this in mind, I say lets nip this in the bud by going whole-hog with a site ban, which I have proposed at the coop. King Bowser K. Rool (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Luigifan is definitely not a sock of Oxy. Almost all of the issues people have raised concern their use of sysop rights, it makes no sense to escalate to banning before sysoprevoke. Christopher (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Luigifan18 is definitely not Oxyaena; Oxyaena has strong opinions on certain topics that Luigifan tends to be hedgy on, plus Oxy is overall much more of a drama queen. Regardless, this case is more about Luigifan18's (ab)use of sysop tools, so a full site ban is unnecessary at this time. Plutocow (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not even familiar with Oxyaena, so I couldn't imitate their writing style even if I wanted to. 😜 As for "jumping at the excuse to use sysop tools", that… is a fair assessment. I am pretty eager to contribute to keeping RW on-mission, so I am perhaps more than a little trigger-happy in blocking obvious vandals and reverting their edits, but I do sometimes have to remind myself that this isn't Conservapedia and I shouldn't be maintaining "integrity" with an iron fist. However, I'd use the word "reason" instead — I don't impose permablocks and revision deletions just for people talking a little funny. I only do that for stuff that's very clearly in bad faith (like long-term trolls). I don't even generally erase Ken's revisions, because unlike the gorilla moron or cheerleader-hater, Ken at least consistently makes an effort to appear to be contributing in good faith (even if he does inevitably espouse "opinions" that run counter to reality and its liberal bias). Check my block log (which was conveniently linked to elsewhere in this thread); I have issued more than a few "slap on the wrist" blocks of just a few minutes for users who I perceived as misbehaving, but who weren't causing severe disruption and who I could believe were just goofing around or making honest mistakes. If I think a vandal isn't one of the known long-term trolls whose only interest in this site is throwing it completely off the rails, I'll block them for a few days at most. Luigifan18 (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The “slaps on the wrist” are part of the problem as well. Your insistence on vandal binning “possible spambots” despite being told to stop, while mostly harmless so far, is the perfect example of this. You shouldn’t block someone for any length of time for an honest mistake. Christopher (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring to spambots with "slaps on the wrist", and I actually haven’t bothered with the vandal bin for suspected spambots after seeing one make another edit that got blocked by the filter after I put them in the bin (which happened just one or two days ago). I've now shifted to blocks with talk page access allowed for suspected spambots that only trip the edit filter on their own userpage one or two times, as I don't have access to the filtered edits and thus can't be certain whether or not they actually are spambots, so I give them a chance to explain themselves to the sysops or mods. If I see three or more filtered edits or a filtered edit that attempts to create a page that is clearly attempting to sell something or harass RW users, however, I jump right to full blocking, because the chance of such a user being here in good faith is practically zero. No, the "honest mistakes" I refer to are edits that delete crucial information to a page or add nonsense, but aren't a blatant attempt at disruption as far as I can tell, or which I can believe were committed in a flash of high emotion and that the user in question could learn from the mistake and redeem themselves; there are several times where I've issued blocks of less than 1 hour in length as just a way of saying "what you did wasn't cool, please don't do that again". --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I still lean towards warning Luigifan, but I admit I haven't been paying enough attention to know if this has been really disruptive. 16:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * …I will admit that I lost my cool dealing with Kasunex and the cheerleader weirdo going on prolonged rampages. I'm usually not that vitriolic, but I really like this site and I get a little angry when I see people messing with it. In general, I tend to get outraged when I see people intentionally making the lives of others more difficult. I'm sorry that I let my emotions get the better of me, and I'll try to be less passionate and more sensible with the sysop tools in general in the future. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The "cheerleader weirdo" is more than likely User:Grawp or someone imitating him. I recall speculation a few years ago (largely from Oxyaena and Dyskliver who said everybody they didn't like was Morris or MikeMike, if I remember correctly) that Grawp is actually DMorris, but I don't see the connection. Again, if I'm remembering correctly, DMorris and Ex-Troll were about the same age and from the same city or nearby cities, so they more than likely knew each other and probably liked each other off-wiki, therefore even if the two played cat-and-mouse on the wiki (likely just to cause disruption), I doubt he would have told her she should be raped as I recall Grawp doing as that was probably very hurtful to her. Nonetheless, while I'm too lazy to dig up links, regardless of who it is that is one nasty troll and the best way to deal with it is to . King Bowser K. Rool (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will keep that in mind when dealing with them again in the future. --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Their previous sysoprevoke was the warning, imo. Christopher (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. One thing this site does wrong is tolerance of abusive sysops. Frankly, it's a demonstration of the failures of RW's laissez-faire policy of handing out the sysop tools to almost every person who registers an account. I half wonder if the site would be better off to revisit that policy, which has been in effect since the old guard days, possibly to institute a process like Wikipedia's RfA. Not everybody needs to be a sysop. King Bowser K. Rool (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to hold on to my sysop tools, if for no other reason than that I take keeping this site clean fairly seriously, and I check in on a semi-regular basis. I can think of quite a few instances where I was the first or main responder to an act of vandalism. I will admit that I could have handled some large-scale attacks on RationalWiki much, much better. In hindsight, erasing Kasunex's revisions completely probably fed their persecution complex and spurred on additional vandalism. While I do try to write block, deletion, or protection reasons with the goal of taking trolls down a peg and giving the rest of the site a laugh at their expense, I'll admit that there were quite a few times where I took "putting down the trolls and telling them to go away" past the level of "being the comical sysop" into being downright vindictive (most prominently when I suggested that Ken, Kasunex, and Grawp (e.g. the cheerleader-hater) should kill themselves, which takes it past the level of "telling the vandals to go away" and into outright cyberbullying, which is behavior that I am not okay with, and I am ashamed of myself for stooping to a level of behavior that I thoroughly despise). In short, I recognize that I have been rather irresponsible with the sysop tools, and I'm genuinely sorry for that. I have previously taken criticism into account even if I've appeared to blow it off (for instance, I haven't issued any 0-second blocks to quiet accounts after being told to stop doing that, and the one time I was sorely tempted to flag some accounts as suspicious, I instead brought up my concerns with the multitude of recently-created suspiciously-quiet accounts on a more experienced sysop's talk page rather than flagging the accounts in question). I only persisted with deleting revisions because I legitimately believed that I was helping the site by hiding harmful revisions from non-sysops — discouraging trolls by leaving no trace of vandalism or things that could potentially get used as "evidence" of RationalWiki's "debauchery" or even actually harmful to RW in a legal sense. In the future, I'll make an effort to be more judicious and dispassionate with my use of sysop tools. --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like there's a more appropriate time for this. 21:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Would suggest a permanent sysoprevoke. Luigifan got sysoprevoked in the past as a warning for this very behavior. It's textbook sysop abuse to go around and block random people based on vague accusations or no edits at all. "Not getting it" would suggest a stricter punishment. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * On the grounds that nobody could be as stupid as Luigifan's actions seem to show them: is it possible that we're being mocked in the most devious way? Is L doing this intentionally to take the piss? (What really troubles me is that even if they get sysoprevoke they'll still be able to stick bloody, Oxford, commas, in, wherever, they, fancy.) Scream!! (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Uh… no, I'm not taking the piss. I just got hot under the collar when dealing with some trolls, and I won't let it happen again. (And I haven't "blocked random people" based on vague suspicions since I got told off for it last month.) Luigifan18 (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Mama mia you already promised this when you got a warning. Sorry, bro, looks like your sysop tools may be in another castle. 03:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposed site ban for Luigifan18 (moved from Chicken Coop)
There is currently a call for sysoprevoke going on at ATM, but I'd like to propose a full-blown site ban via the chicken coop instead. The two reasons for this proposal are 1: (s)he has only been here since June and has been to ATM three times already 2: (s)he acts so much like banned user User:Oxyaena that this could be a sock (and regardless of whether this person is in fact a sock of Oxy, we don't need anyone acting like Oxy here). Number two is based on the user's excessive use of revision deletion, wanton Oxy-style feeding of trolls in block summaries (recall that Oxy's heavy-handed bullshit is one reason I had to register in the first place after years of lurking and anon-wikignomeing), and failure to heed the advice of other users. Lets nip this shit in the bud now rather than six months to three years from now, lets 86 Luigifan18 from the site before (s)he becomes the next Oxy. Pinging and  because they are experts on Oxy. King Bowser K. Rool (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The Oxy thing is irrelevant. Don't continue that thread. 21:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * …Who the heck is Oxyaena? I have literally never even heard of them. Luigifan18 (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * A site ban is too harsh. The most I would support is a ban of pi weeks (3.14 weeks.) Andrew5 (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * …I will admit that I lost my cool dealing with Kasunex and the cheerleader weirdo going on prolonged rampages. I'm usually not that vitriolic, but I really like this site and I get a little angry when I see people messing with it. In general, I tend to get outraged when I see people intentionally making the lives of others more difficult. I'm sorry that I let my emotions get the better of me, and I'll try to be less passionate in the future. Luigifan18 (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The "cheerleader weirdo" is more than likely User:Grawp or someone imitating him. I recall speculation a few years ago (largely from Oxyaena and Dyskliver, if I remember correctly) that Grawp is actually DMorris, but I don't see the connection. Again, if I'm remembering correctly, DMorris and Ex-Troll were about the same age and from the same city or nearby cities, so they more than likely knew each other and probably liked each other off-wiki, therefore even if the two played cat-and-mouse on the wiki (likely just to cause disruption), I doubt he would have told her she should be raped as I recall Grawp doing as that was probably very hurtful to her. Nonetheless, while I'm too lazy to dig up links, that is one nasty troll and the best way to deal with it is to . King Bowser K. Rool (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you, I will keep that in mind. --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Refocused discussion
Since the above discussion is all over the place, let's refocus it here. --Andrew5 (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is... Luigifan's second strike? Why not apply the three strike rule of baseball here? applies here. Vee (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Luigifan has acknowledged the problem and his mistakes. This is good. The problem is, he has also done this last time IIRC. Sysoprevoke can always be revoked in the future if he shows signs of improvement, so it's not the worst thing in the world. I'd strongly advise against appealing only a few weeks after the the vote ends in case sysoprevoke passes though. I don't think anyone is happy about this situation. I know I'm not. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 03:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * True, but to my admittedly foggy memory Luigifan also took care of a lot of instances of spam and vandalism, did he not? That just goes with the job of sysop, of course. I do think that's something to be considered, he clearly takes the job seriously. I don't think permanent sysoprevoke is warranted. Vee (talk) 04:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Cleaning up spam and vandalism is pretty much the bare minimum of sysopship, Ushit did that too and I don't think anybody would seriously argue that he's a good sysop. While you could certainly say that Luigifan is taking this seriously, one of the biggest problems is that they are taking this too seriously, by constantly interpreting every driveby troll as an existential threat to RW and its mission, causing them to overreact to everything and make us look like jackasses. Keep in mind that an "indefinite" sysoprevoke doesn't mean "forever", it just means for the foreseeable future until something changes that can cause us to reevaluate the status, and I think for now, Luigifan18 has neither the maturity nor competence to handle sysop tools. They clearly need distance from them to improve as an editor and to stop focusing on things like spambots that aren't a big deal in the grand scheme of things. Plutocow (talk) 04:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * UShit was actually a good sysop...until they abused RevDel. Then a once productive user went off the deep end. --Andrew5 (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's been brought up more than twice (usually by Plutocow), and is only the "second strike" if you only count from the earlier short-term sysoprevoke, rather than the more numerous warnings. Instead, I think what happened after the earlier revoke is a demonstration of not being mature enough with sysop tools or able to follow up on the claims of listening and improving with that. Keep in mind also that Luigifan has not simply saved others work, but also created new work for others to clean up L's mistakes (mainly Plutocow took on that task).


 * So I think indefinite sysoprevoke makes sense. However, outside of the bad use of sysop tools, I think Luigifan is constructive and does good work editing articles. I'd like to encourage Luigifan to keep up the good work with proofreading and "wikignoming". In that role I think you're good and understand what you do well. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think we can all agree that they are a constructive user. Hence why this atim is so sad, even if it's necessary. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 04:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If this vote passes, how would I be able to demonstrate enough maturity to be entrusted with the sysop tools without actually having access to them? I think this ATIM is enough of a wake-up call for me to change how I use the tools. I'll admit that I do tend to push the envelope (and the "kill yourself" block remarks were way out of line), but I'm legitimately just trying to be helpful. --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Just be a normal contributor, and people will warm up to you eventually. Sysoprevokes have been lifted before. 23:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It'll take a while though, we just want to see how you handle future conflicts from there. 00:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Call it too harsh, I looked at Luigi's talkpage. The fact that permanent sysoproboke is not on the table is puzzling to say the least. Luigi has had 3 ATIMs, nearly gone to coop, been warned countless times to stop engaging with spambots, deleting revisions or otherwise stop being an ass, and he has said he will do better in the future every single time. He doesn't. We should not be affording even an ounce of charitability or good faith to this person. I am sick of this user's lies and pleading for forgiveness when he hasn't earned it. I was charitable last ATIM when I thought you had a chance to improve. I see now that you're not changing. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to "handle conflict" while sysoprevoked, which is why I'm trying to hold on to the sysop tools — to prove that being brought to ATIM was a sufficient wake-up call and I can actually use them responsibly. Also, while I admittedly haven't taken all of the advice given to me, I have corrected my behavior when given a good reason why my current course of action is counterproductive; see the 0-second block discussion on Plutocow's talk page for an example. Luigifan18 (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, and another thing — to the best of my knowledge, the issues that got me in ATIM the first time were very different from what I'm in trouble for now. The last time, the big problem was me being too lenient — unwitting unbanning Ken socks and spambots because I wasn't sure what they did wrong and thought that they should be given another chance. The problem this time was me being too harsh — blocking accounts that didn't do anything (generally for 0 seconds or a few minutes, but still), completely deleting even minor instances of vandalism, telling persistent trolls to kill themselves, etc. So the accusation that I haven't learned from my mistakes is absolutely not true. A better and more accurate accusation to make would be that I've taken the advice and criticism from the earlier ATIM too well, to the point where my zeal to perform my sysop duties became detrimental to RationalWiki. I'm still trying to find the right balance of the execution of my responsibilities, so I think the best thing for me to do for the time being is to just follow the lead of more experienced users. --Luigifan18 (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Moved from coop, it's not likely to change anything
I have a lot of things to say here about this user's abuse of sysop powers, but that's for ATIM. I'm raising this coop case because of Luigi's unacceptable behavior in regards to the messages they left in the edit summary, their lying and inability to engage in good faith with other users, and their flagrant violations of community standards concerning user rights, blocking, deleting revisions and so on.

To start off, Luigi's comment in an edit summary after blocking someone is a flagrant violations of our community standards on conduct. His attempt to hide this after being called out on it reinforces my idea that he knows he is guilty of this. His attempts to explain this away as snark, anger, or claims that he regrets this are attempts to deflect blame from himself, despite the fact that he abused deleting powers to attempt to hide these logs. This, to me, is an admission of guilt. This comment on its own would warrant actions beyond Sysoprevoke, but the fact that he tried to hide this makes this far more serious.

This ties into the next reason Luigi is in coop right now. Luigi has shown time and time again that he is unable to engage with users honestly and in good faith. Luigi's talk page, past ATIMs, and even his current ATIM all show an inability to take and implement critique honestly. What do I mean by this? Look at every time Plutocow has told Luigi exactly what to do to improve his behavior on his talk page. It is littered with countless examples of Luigi saying "Okay, I will do better." or "I was trying to do X but I won't do it in the future." Even in his ATIM he keeps doing this, and what behavior has changed or improved over time? None. These were lies, Luigi has not improved his behavior. His constant dishonesty and lying is not only cause for him to be sysoprevoked, but for us to consider whether he's even capable of engaging with this community in good faith at all. We should not tolerate liars on this platform.

Luigi's abuse of sysop powers have already been covered in ATIM, but these, yet again, violate community standards. Editing other user's talkpages, blocking accounts that haven't made even a single edit, creating talk pages for accounts that haven't made even a single edit, abusing deletelog powers beyond the scope of what they should be used for, and so on. Unacceptable behavior, I should not have to explain why this is bad.

Luigi has shown himself to be a bad faith member of this community. I recommend a permanent Sysoprevoke or a week long block to get this user in order. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't see this as a coverup by Luigifan18, as you seem to be implying, Ozzyboo. The accusation about Luigifan18 wishing death on accounts that Luigifan18 was blocking came on December 3, and Luigifan18 admitted that they did that (RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation). The link that you provided shows 5 offensive comments that Luigifan18 hid on December 4 (4 of which certainly crossed the line), but includes the unhidden comment by Luigifan18, "Inappropriate or excessively offensive comment: I was dumb enough to tell someone to kill themselves. I shouldn't have done that. I'm honestly disgusted with myself for stooping to that level." If Luigifan18 was protesting innocense while hiding evidence showing guilt, that would be another matter. Bongolian (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Bongolian is right; I hid those past block summaries not because they reflect badly on me (which they do), but because they reflect badly on RationalWiki itself. It'd be one thing if it was just my own ass on the line, but I don't want people looking back at this years down the road and seeing RationalWiki sysops telling people to kill themselves. That could get the whole site in trouble. Seriously,, that "bad faith" remark really hurts. I really like this site and its community, which may explain why I allowed myself to get way too angry and annoyed when people persistently messed with it. I'm trying to show improvement, but honestly, there haven't been many chances for me to do that recently. (I will mention that some of the things you mentioned, like editing other people's talkpage comments or blocking accounts that have done literally nothing, are things that I haven't done for over a month - and given that I've only been here for three or four months, that is fairly significant.) Luigifan18 (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Luigifan18 certainly makes the maturity to be a sysop; while I'd argue for a 2 week ban, I doubt it's gonna happen at this point. The ATIM vote currently has 24-2 consensus to sysoprevoke, and given how sysoprevoke votes (unlike ban votes) only need 50%+1, we'd need 22 editors to suddenly support him keeping the mop as no one else votes to sysoprevoke. Chances of that happening? Almost zero.Andrew5 (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Goat
Looks like the Coop is seeing some use after all. I don't get the naming for it, but OK. Vee (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The name of the Chicken Coop is probably a silly reference to Headless Chicken Mode, e.g. "running around like a decapitated chicken". Luigifan18 (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

this is not required
there is an ATIM ongoing concerning the subject of this coop case, and nothing is being added here beyond one user trying for a more severe punishment than there is evidently any support for in the ATIM. close this case. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Disregard. 01:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Yay

 * 1) They've had more than enough warnings at this point. Plutocow (talk) 05:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Mama mia! 05:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Bongolian (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) For constantly failing to show the calm detachment needed to be a good sysop, for failing to listen to advice, for not learning a lesson from the previous sanction and for telling others to kill themselves. Spud (talk) 09:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) -Flandres (talk) 11:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Christopher (talk) 12:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) Scream!! (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 9) Wait what, ? That final piece is grounds for a ban. --Andrew5 (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 10) I agree with Andrew. That shit don’t fly. I take that kind of thing very seriously, and we might need a Coop. 13:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * A permaban vote could probably be held in ATIM. We've done that for Scrooge, ADOC and UShit.--Andrew5 (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I floated a motion for a permaban over at the coop, someone else moved it over here. I say lets revive that coop case. Ban discussions belong at the coop, not ATM. If we're not going to use the coop, we need to mothball it and move the HCM notice over here because that "x amount of days since the last squabble" is a farce (frankly, it's whitewashing RationalWiki's stability and integrity). King Bowser K. Rool (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd block for 2 weeks to strike the iron while it's hot but that's past, and it seems like people aren't really in the mood to escalate to coop or the basement for that. 20:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I'm ashamed of myself for that as well. I have very little patience for malicious people, but telling them to kill themselves is still rather beyond the pale. --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As my grandmother used to say, sorry doesn't cut the mustard. King Bowser K. Rool (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Christopher (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Edward the eight (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Luigifan18 may no longer have sysop rights, but they could still write egregious things like the death threat in edit summaries, talk pages, etc. Let this be a firm warning as well. LongStylus (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * --Andrew5 mobile (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've lost access to a few Reddit communities for that sort of thing in the past… I don't tolerate malicious people well. Outright suicide dares are not kosher, though, especially for an authority figure such as a sysop, and I won't allow myself to do that again. --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep digging yourself deeper in that hole. You might as well tell a manager "I got fired from a previous job for doing the same thing, I'm incapable of learning from my mistakes." King Bowser K. Rool (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The point I'm making is that I should have known better, I'm sorry, and I won't do it again. --Luigifan18 (talk) 04:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Didn't you say that last time? Andrew5 (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think last time I legitimately didn't know better. This time, I really, really should have. --Luigifan18 (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Isn't the expression, "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me"? I don't think RW wants the shame, which is evidentally what not supporting this proposal is. --Andrew5 (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  17:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Eniugh firm warnings. Shabi  DOO  19:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) I don’t do excuses. King Bowser K. Rool (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Since when was I making excuses? I know I've screwed up, and I'll do better going forward. (Not that it seems to be making a difference, with everyone except piling on the "let's destroy Luigifan" bandwagon… again…) --Luigifan18 (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "Again"? Are you talking about your previous sysoprevoke? Anyway, the spambot stuff was just the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak. You've been accumulating warning after warning in both your talkpage and Plutocow's talkpage. It's clear you aren't ready to be sysop here. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm referring to the previous sysoprevoke, where nobody seemed to give a shit about anything said in my defense. And how would people know when I'm ready? --Luigifan18 (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that you're fighting so hard and pointlessly for sysop tools makes me think you're just power-hungry. No one needs to be a sysop on a wiki. Additionally, linking to the page on "kangaroo court" is not a good way to win friends and influence people. I would've voted against you right here if I hadn't voted already. 14:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Keeping on as you are now is only going to further ruin your reputation here. Christopher (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not "power-hungry", I just want to continue serving this community. And this is what I mean by "kangaroo court" — nobody seems to care that I've acknowledged that I screwed up and promised not to do it again. --Luigifan18 (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is what I'm talking about. Instead of being introspective and wondering if there's a reason 20 people don't trust you, you're doubling down on "kangaroo court" and insisting that everyone but you is being unreasonable. That's not the kind of attitude I want to see in a sysop. Maybe focus on contributing to the wiki rather than using sysop tools all the time or asking for more roles. 19:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be blunt, but you sound like a fifth grader Luigi. King Bowser K. Rool (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What? How? I'm not seeing it. --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  Jake Holmes ''yell at me 01:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) —cosmikdebris talk stalk 03:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) ApooftGnegiol (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Per earlier suggestion. -- Techpriest (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Which earlier suggestion? --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) This bullshit is so infuriating to me. You should never be in a position of power over anybody. You have squandered any and all good faith this wiki has generously provided you in some self righteous crusade against spambots and trolls. I have nothing else to say, may goat have mercy on your soul. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Vee (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) As I said before, can be revoked if the user shows improvement in the future. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 22:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, how would that be defined? --Luigifan18 (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be defined by the community and not a set formula. I know I'll never get sysop again after all the SB disputes I got in February, where I got extraordinarily close to losing autopatrolled and skirted past a permaban (I was banned for pi weeks, as a suitable replacement.) This SB drama cropped up as recently as June (or arguably September), so I doubt it's coming back. --Andrew5 (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, that's depressing. --Luigifan18 (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Just do your regular stuff for a while, like correcting typos and stuff. I think you case is different from Andrew's since, unlike him you've never engaged in squabbles as far as I'm aware. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 01:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, if I just kept myself out of the bar in January and February, I'd probably would've successfully appealed my sysoprevoke. I contributed to circumstance that led to GC leaving and combined with other drama everyone hates me now. --Andrew5 (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Nutty Roux (talk) 11:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) This user is very clearly incompetent, and is not able to fulfill this fuction in a productive manner. Wisconcom (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Nay
RW deserves all the Luigifan18's it gets. Nutty Roux (talk) 12:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Again, I'd like to hold on to my sysop tools. I'll take this as a firm warning to be more judicious with how I use them in the future. --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I edited this comment for formatting, as it was meant to be a vote. 17:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I still think we should apply the "three strikes" rule from baseball. If Luigifan fucks up again, then we sysoprevoke them. Vee (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "Three strikes" makes sense to me. That's actually my policy for dealing with potential spambots — one or two edit filter trips on their own userpage have a high enough chance of being a false positive that it's worth giving them a chance to defend themselves (hence why I block their access to everything but user talk pages — if they're really not a spambot, they can ask a mod to look into the matter and unblock them), but three or more edit filter trips or making a junk page has such a low possibility of being an accident that it just makes more sense to block them. ( blocking a spambot for just one edit filter trip makes sense, since he's a tech and can actually see the filtered edit, so he can tell whether or not it's actually spam. I can't see filtered edits, so one or two filtered edits aren't enough evidence for me to know whether or not I should issue a full block.) --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ehhhhhhhhhh all the warnings on your talk page should count as "strikes". --Andrew5 (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I should have taken them more seriously, perhaps… I did legitimately think that I was helping the wiki by deleting troll revisions, though. --Luigifan18 (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Stop pleading. You sound like you’re begging at this point.Andrew5 mobile (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As glad as I am to have someone defending me, I'm not entirely happy with the way you said that. It sounds like you're taking the piss with this site. A lot of the criticisms made of me in this ATIM are legitimate, and I need to improve my behavior if I'm going to be a valued member of this community. --Luigifan18 (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not defending you and there is very little chance you'll ever be valued here. Nutty Roux (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * …I think that's taking the piss… --Luigifan18 (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think your history as a sysop here reveals that you don't actually care about anyone but yourself and that you lack the very basic good judgment and concern for the site and others to use sysop tools responsibly. Nutty Roux (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This should be used as an example as to why you don’t blabber on. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 12:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not everything requires your comment. You are not wise or interesting. Please stop posting on this website. Nutty Roux (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Who was that "blabber on" remark directed at? I'm the one who made severe mistakes, yes, but Nutty Roux is showing severe disrespect both to me and to RationalWiki as a whole. I could shrug off the former, 'cause I do kind of deserve it right now, but the latter is pissing me off a bit. I'm trying to hold on to my sysop tools precisely because I like this website and I want to continue doing my part to keep it healthy and on-mission. --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How do you not realize that this is literally the problem? Who gives a shit if (x random user) "disrespects RationalWiki"? What is this? Why are you taking this seriously? You can't go "I will do better" and LITERALLY do the same thing within the same breath. Hopeless. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Goat

 * A link to the logs where Luigifan18 told some troll to kill himself, helpfully collected when Luigi hid them (another, relatively minor, abuse of sysop power). https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RevisionDelete&target=Special%3ALog%2Fblock&type=logging&ids=2435998%2C2435940%2C2435916%2C2435914%2C2435903 Christopher (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Removing something that reflects badly on the community is "abuse"? As said elsewhere in this discussion, death threats and suicide dares don't and shouldn't fly, and are grounds for revision deletion. Frankly, I'm ashamed of myself for having done that in the first place. --Luigifan18 (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If we did that, the entirety of the Chicken Coop and a big part of ATIM should be suppressed, but anyway, I don't see this one as abuse of deletelogentry rights. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "Ban evasion: Wow. Every remark you make is another reason why you don't deserve Internet access. Or functional lungs". Holy shit! Are you some sort of 4chan egdelord? I now understand why 3 people want a permaban for you! Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I got too hot under the collar. Yes, the user in question had designated "Kill!" as their username and was making some truly atrocious remarks (plus I had already blocked them over 6 times previously that night, with other sysops also banning them a few times that night as well, and several of their remarks were directed at me specifically), but as they say, two wrongs don't make a right. I was trying to be snarky in my ban reason, but I just came across as cruel. I am legitimately disgusted with myself for that… I should have stopped that one at "Internet access" like I originally intended. (Not that any of the other death threats were less disgusting…) --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You do know what "snark" is, right? A snarky ban reason would be "Looks like someone forgot to turn on Net Nanny", not "YOU DESERVE TO DIE!!!1!!" Plutocow (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * --Andrew5 (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Like I've been saying, I'm not happy with myself for losing my temper and issuing death threats, and I won't let it happen again. I'm trying to be the comical sysop who punctures trolls' egos, not a frothing maniac. --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, the only way to "puncture trolls' egos" is to make it look like they're not having any effect on you or the wiki. If you want to be snarky, do it in a way that's detached and dismissive, not in a way that makes it look like they're making you angry. Of course, for the most part it's better not to engage at all. Plutocow (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "Make it look like they're not having any effect on the wiki"? That's what the revision deletions were for… though now that I type this out, removing any and every dodgy revision is a bit draconian and Conservapedia-esque. --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I think I'm doing better at the "detached and dismissive" thing recently, what with my more recent block reasons and deletion reasons just being pithy things like "Incel rage". --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't expect you to improve overnight. 00:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I'm already improving. --Luigifan18 (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I advise you to ignore the Recent Changes page. Don't worry about the trolls and the vandals and the spambots. They aren't going to kill the wiki or derail its mission. There are other people who can and will deal with them. You don't have to take sysop-like actions in order to be made a sysop. I never did. Spud (talk) 08:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The Recent Changes page is the main way I find pages in need of improvements, sysop actions or not. Luigifan18 (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Stop responding with justifications and rationalisations. Don't dismiss good advice. Show you have taken everything on board by keeping a low profile for a while, ignoring trolls, ignoring provocations, and let things go that can and will be dealt with by others. This ATIM has run its course. The time to argue is past. Responding to every post now just reinforces the idea you do not listen and you take things to personally and overreact. Do not respond to this post. Accept the outcome here and let it go, keeping a low profile for awhile as you do.AMassiveGay (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Do what I do. Keep clicking on "Random page" until you find one you can edit. There is no need for you to look at Recent Changes. Spud (talk) 13:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Let's cut the dogpiling. Saying Luigifan is a troll, should be banned, is here in bad faith and whatnot obviously isn't going to help him improve. Vee (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 15:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. They are really quite a good editor.  Certainly better than most of our current iteration. Unfortunately they take their sysop duties as little too seriously. If they just kept to editing I'm sure they would, in time, become one of the most influential and respected editors on the site.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I find some of his edits to be... questionable ("muh Palestine" and "inbred hick trash" spring to mind). I had to remove both IIRC. He makes a lot of good formatting edits, which I am thankful for. Some of his essays are what I find to be of questionable value. Either way, he's certainly more contributive than most of the cream of the crop here. Vee (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Simply doing general fixes didn’t get me much respect, so I doubt it would get Luigifan that much either. Then again, DietMorodian is quite respected. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that I've not read any of their essays. But one of the reasons that essay space was created (lo these many years ago) was to give editors with views which did not match with the prevailing consensus an opportunity to express them. Avoidance of groupthink was one of the objectives. Obviously within some decency limits.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * They write essays in mainspace. Vee (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You know we have essay space?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes? I've been here long enough to know the difference between main space and essayspace. They explicitly say on their talk page they add "mini-essays" to mainspace articles. Vee (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, Andrew, good point. Vee (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If any of you have issues with my mainspace mini-essays, please, review them and give me advice to improve them. Heck, you can revise them yourself if something is grossly inaccurate and it's absolutely necessary to fix it. I wrote the mini-essays off the top of my head as a way to illustrate and expand upon the points made within their pages; I didn't really go out of my way to fact check. Or have you missed how often I've used the "citation needed" template while writing them? I've collected the mini-essays on my userpage precisely so that people can look at them and help me make revisions. --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I recognize your value as an editor, Luigi. Hell, I don't think you deserve permanent sysoprevoke. We're all human. What happened to "assume good faith"? I get we're all frustrated with Luigi, but this relentless shaming and dogpiling is just gonna drive away a promising editor. Vee (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't researched what Luigifan18 has been doing that's got a bug into the collective undies, but I have never seen so many votes for a penalty. Reflect on that, fella.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Luigi could be the second coming of Christ himself and I still don't think he would deserve sysop. People who take this wiki seriously to this extent will foster a hostile and toxic environment for everybody. People like Luigi will drive new users away. I would rather take RW collectively dogpiling Luigi than Luigi's stupid, ridiculous antics and abuses of power fueled by the giant wooden stick up his ass potentially costing us new users. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You make a good point, I just don't think we should be dogpiling him. People have made clear he's a not a good sysop. Vee (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Making lots of spelling/grammar/formatting corrections will not earn a person much respect: it doesn't take a lot of talent. Making substantive edits without citations that you know need to be edited by someone else is bad, it's just your opinion at that point, and it's just making work for other people (User:Luigifan18). On the other hand, making regular, substantive, high-quality edits with quality references will earn you respect. Bongolian (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We are not an encyclopedia. I don't think arguments that are self-explanatory really have a need to be cited. This wiki explicitly allows for original research, after all. On the other hand, not all arguments are made equally. A poor argument can and should be removed, especially if it is uncited. Vee (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you think an online encyclopedia should be, but we meet a definition of sorts, with "internet website" replacing "book or set of books": [a book or set of books] giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject and typically arranged alphabetically. What we are not is the same as Wikipedia.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * (EC) Nobody thinks poor arguments should be left in place, and a bad argument is not improved by citations, though citations might be evidence of an argument's being good. Likewise, nobody thinks what's obvious needs to be cited, the issue lies in deciding what's obvious, which arguments are bad, and what contributions make an article better or worse. All of these can be controversial, but on the whole, I expect that if I added, to a silver article, a mini-essay based on no research, accompanied by a disclaimer to this effect and a note that what I've written needs to be fact-checked by somebody else, I would (i) reduce the overall quality of the article, (ii) be doing something rather disrespectful to the other editors on whose time I'm making a claim by requesting that they do the research I couldn't be bothered with. That a bad argument can be removed is not a good reason to add bad arguments to articles, nor to add arguments whose quality you cannot evaluate due to a lack of relevant knowledge. We have talkpages and an essayspace with plenty of space for whatever free-floating musings anybody might have. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒  talk  22:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources should be in an article whenever possible. --Andrew5 (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I always err on the side of citing most information. There's no reason not to besides laziness. 01:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Andrew5 mobile (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of the mini-essays are just explanations of principles or descriptions of points made elsewhere in the article. --Luigifan18 (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, though, the mini-essay I wrote on the Heresy page was just me on a soapbox. I've moved that one into the Essay page space so it doesn't get mistaken for a statement of fact. --Luigifan18 (talk) 04:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Motion to close
The writing on the wall near unanimous, and I guess I'm at that point where we should be closing this rather than let Luigifan18 continue weeping and promising things. 05:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Second. 05:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Third. Vee (talk) 06:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)