RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive76

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 18 May 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Articles for deletion...[edit]

To whit; 'Balanced Budget Amendment'

Noted this last night [some 22:00 BST] on way home from work. Came on now to reply on this, discovered it had already been ended.

Whoever closed it - I accuse you doing it too quickly.

I also believe there should be a minimum amount of hours an AFD should be open before it is closed. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the Balanced Budget Amendment is missional, though the article as it existed… well, I'm not that well-informed on the subject, so I had no reason to disagree with the "Delete" votes stating that the article as written was a misrepresentation in need of a complete rewrite. --Luigifan18 (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
What I thought about it [chances are, my reply would have been as big as Gee's] is irrelevant because I didn't get the chance to say anything! Plus, what I said might have even swayed a vote or two [it has in the past]. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
I wasn't even aware it was up for a vote. Minimum time for a deletion vote might be a good idea. I'm not sure it would have saved this page though due to its stubbiness. Bongolian (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
While we're at it, I also think we should put in a quorum. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
How about we keep them open either for a week or until there is a difference of 7 votes either for keep or delete, what happens first? Also maybe we should consider some criteria for speedy deletion. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 19:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Good idea. I'm now remembering the VenomFangX AFD that was open for a really long time… --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Maybe those would be good limits, I'm pretty neutral on the specifics. On speedy deletion, I think it boils down to, if it would have been fine to just delete a page without holding a vote, then there's no reason to drag it out with a vote. That could go for hopelessly tiny stubs, hopelessly off-mission, spam, vandalism, etc., the pages usually deleted with no controversy. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── We could reopen the vote? Carthage (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

My position is, if an article that was previously spared AfD can be nominated again, there's no reason why an article that was previously deleted can't be given a second chance if it's improved; in fact I have recreated a couple of deleted articles like Fun:Guam. I would have no objection to someone working on this in draftspace or similar. Plutocow (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
That article was, as I argued on the Afd page, beyond redemption, so it would be better to wp:TNTWikipedia it instead of ressurrect it IMO. That being said, you said yourself that you don't know anything about the subject, so I sincerely think you shouldn't do it yourself. There's also the missionality issue. As I said, even if the article was better, I doubt it would have much space here. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 18:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Where in my text does it state that I would be the one to reopen the vote? I was curious to hear what KP had to say, and clearly there is a simple solution to this issue given that KP is complaining that the vote was closed too early. Carthage (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Well, you asked if we could reopen the vote, so I thought you were interested at keeping the article. As far as I understand, this thread is more about creating general rules, not about this specific case. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 18:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I complained because I suspect something may have been something worth out of it - that is, if I'd been able to read through it properly [not that the vote should be re-opened]. I am currently pre-drafting a RW article on 'Austerity' which can be seen as a real-life attempt doing a 'balanced budget amendment' - for example, in the UK the Chancellor Osborne talked about getting rid of the 'structural deficit' within five years and getting the debt/GDP ratio declining by the end of the decade, as well as examples of say, Greece, Spain etc. I also have a lot more cynicism regarding 'monetary policy' being effective [also is not a real option for example, nations in the Eurozone] than Gee does. Lastly, I vaguely recall the article in question not really noticing the political side of such a policy - the desire was clearly a chronic 'starve the beast' [to death, really; play any 'balance the budget' simulator - I managed it but only by axing Medicaid, the ACA, diability benefits, SNAP, free school meals, HUD housing, colleges, all cultural/art/non-school educational programmes and the elimiation of tax refunds to the poor] but any surplus will immediately be earmarked for tax cuts. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Anyway, on the rules for AfD votes; I think that unless the page is clearly wrong/spam/shilling/libellous, I'm happy to accept Gee's idea [though 168h not 7 days, to take into account time-zones] and a quorum of 10. I also suggest we put in a maximum of three weeks [504h]; that if a decision is not found by that point, the motion fails. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Cross-wiki vandal "Svex" has appeared[edit]

TAFF J1809-2400b's contributions make it unmistakable. This is the same "juvenile criminals" and number-of-years and letters-numbers and astronomical technobabble vandal known to Uncyclopedia and Illogicopedia. See Svex, LSD 11 among Uncyc's LSDs. Previously, the same vandal created the now-deleted nonsense page smass. The former stuff is basically identical to things we have edit filtering for on both wikis. It's a very persistent vandal, but highly predictable; unfortunately it took a large edit filter to shut this vandal down (possible given the extreme repetitiveness of their activity). We'll see if we need to extend edit filtering here, but if so, I have Illogcopedia's version to draw upon. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Psst! Don't tell them we're on to them, or they may change up their modus operandi to evade the filters! --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Maybe there's a point in not being too specific. But this is not a scheming vandal, it's someone who acts almost like a bot.
I mainly posted this so, if more stuff like this comes in (socks and junk pages or edits), people here know what it is. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Luigifan18's Topic ban[edit]

2 months ago, we voted for a topic ban from "adding "snark"/"mini-essays" to mainspace."

However, Luigifan18 has not been upholding this ban as can be seen here and here. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

why doesn't he ever listen? ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
It's very unclear how this "topic ban" is supposed to apply. I haven't really bothered updating my mini-essay list in a while because I haven't perceived any of my recent edits as fitting the label (well, maybe a few of them; I'll have to go back and look). There have been a few instances where I've hesitated to put something in a page outright and went to a talk page first (in fact, I did that today or yesterday for the Freedom From Atheism Foundation article), but for some reason, I don't see many replies to those, so… better to ask for forgiveness than permission, I suppose?
I do have to say that I take offense to my edits being rollbacked with no feedback on how I can improve on the additions I'm making to the articles, such as my attempts at being witty. I'm open to feedback and suggestions, but I'd like some actual effort to be put into resolving any problems people have with my writing. And yes, I realize that the rollback function doesn't allow summaries to be written; that's something for the techs to address (along with not asking for confirmation, thus allowing for a misclick to generate an accidental garbage edit). --Luigifan18 (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Your attempts at being witty, aka “snark” are part of the topic ban. Hence your edits being rolled back with no comments. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 03:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
He also has a tendency of edit warring when people revert his revisions. Though he does have a point in that a proper enforcement mechanism has never really been set up, which is why we're here. Plutocow (talk) 04:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
As I said in a prior edit summary, I'd rather see pruning over amputation. I know my writing isn't perfect, so I'd appreciate it if people actually tried to help make it better. I thought we were supposed to have a snarky point of view, i.e. not being above taking shots at people who deserve them. (Also, I wouldn't see as much of a need to revert if you only removed really questionable stuff without taking the grammar fixes and link additions with them.) --Luigifan18 (talk) 04:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
The point is that you should be able to do all the grammar fixes and link additions without adding any "questionable stuff". People are well within their rights to revert your edits that violate your topic ban, it's on you to actually start following it. Plutocow (talk) 05:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I used to think until last week that Luigifan18 was just extremely gullible, but I've seen some signs of bad faith recently, so I'm not sure if he has his heart in the right place. The original discussion that I created a few months ago included a topic ban on snark, but he had added snarks, even mentioning it (actually light-snark) on the summaries.[1][2] My proposal is: extend the topic ban to ref notes. Since the topic ban was continuously violated, I think we might consider a block as well. I'm inclined to say support a 3 weeks block since the edits weren't very disruptive, being, at most, midly annoying. However, since 3 weeks didn't work last time, I'm open to a longer block as well. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 13:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hm. Yeah, I know I've gone too far with the snarking in the past, which is why I've tried asking in advance on article talk pages about the appropriateness of some upcoming large or snarky edits (see Freedom From Atheism Foundation, Spirituality, and ENGAGE for some recent examples). Again, it would be helpful to get some feedback on how I can do better, as I want to be able to meaningfully contribute to RationalWiki beyond just grammar checking and linking pages. I assure you that my heart is in the right place. I'm legitimately trying my best to contribute to the wiki. Again, we're supposed to have a snarky point of view. I do know that I can be overzealous at times, so I would appreciate more extensive and constructive feedback.
Speaking of the Freedom From Atheism Foundation page, I reverted the past-tense changes to that article for two main reasons. One, the past-tense shift was half-assed (only covering a couple of word choices in the opening paragraph), so it was easier for me to revert it than to complete it. Two, I'm not really sure whether the Freedom From Atheism Foundation website being dead means that the Freedom From Atheism Foundation organization as a whole is dead. Was it just the website, or was there more to it? (They did have a Facebook page.) And if there was more, is that kaput as well? If the Freedom From Atheism Foundation as a whole organization is defunct/dead or never properly existed beyond its website, then yes, we should be referring to them in the past tense and I was wrong to change that. --Luigifan18 (talk) 13:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
I think we gave you feedback, but you didn't listen. Look, Luigi, I don't want to sound mean, but you've been banned from TVtropes, KnowYourMeme, and even Reddit. Maybe you're doing something wrong. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 13:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
He's been in ATIM 4 times already wouldn't suprise me that he gets permabanned ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Geez, ouch, harsh words from @Reichtangle. 😢 As for what I'm doing wrong, maybe it's reducing the rules of every site I come across to "don't be an asshole"; that's generally how I operate. I don't think I've really been given much specific and constructive criticism beyond "cite sources when you make assertions" — which is fair enough, since I don't often bother to do that (time spent source-hunting is time not spent on writing or gaming), though I think I've gotten a bit better about it in the past few months. And I get it — making clear and accurate constructive criticism can be challenging, and it's much easier to say "I don't like what you're doing, knock it off" in more generic terms. Again, however, I want to be productive here and improve the articles I come across with things like supporting details for arguments, devil's advocate-type counter-statements, explanations of RationalWiki's positions, etc., etc., so it would be nice to know exactly what parts of my writing are proving to be problematic so I can improve on those areas. I'm trying to do better (and I have backed out of making a few large edits in the past week out of concern about going too far again), but I do think I might need more help. --Luigifan18 (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
I'll also agree that I need to cut back on the raw-snarky remarks. Our Snarky Point of View guidelines emphasize that snark on RationalWiki needs to be informative as well as funny, and I'll admit that some comments I've added have neglected the "informative" part for the sake of taking potshots at cranks and fascists. There's a time and place for raw snark here (for instance, the shots at Ted Haggard on the Repent America article), but said potshots ought to be really witty and not just mean, and a few of the remarks I've made that got taken out fell into the "just mean" category. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── As far as I understand, you should not add any sort of snark to the main space. That is the point of a topic ban. A topic ban cannot be tacitly repealed just because in your opinion you are making better edits, you'll have to convince the community before. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 16:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I'll be able to "convince the community" without any opportunity to practice, but I do think I've gone overboard with the snarky edits and I should cut back. I can't promise that I'll hold back entirely if I get a really good idea, but I do agree that I should refrain from raw-snark edits (especially ones that aren't funny) and focus on maintenance and enrichment (i.e. clarification, extra information, etc.). --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Oh, and while I'm at it, I also wanted to apologize for any of my edits (especially my recent edits) that have been seen as obnoxious. My aim has always been to contribute, not to shitpost. --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
You could try asking on the talk page first? Carthage (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Going over Luigifan18's post-topic ban (November 2, 2023) edits,[3] the comments admit to snarking many, many times per month, every month. It doesn't seem like he can be stopped by reasoning. Bongolian (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
@Carthage As I stated earlier, I actually have done that several times… I haven't gotten much in the way of feedback. (Sorry if that sounded rude; I don't have much time for typing at the moment.) --Luigifan18 (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
@Bongolian You got your dates mixed up. The "topic ban" (which is kinda silly IMO) was placed in February 2024 (I recall being locked out of mainspace for most of March). Granted, I have still made quite a few "snark" edits that, in hindsight, didn't add much of value to the wiki during that time (the "didn't add much of value" part being why I agree with the assessment that I should lay off the "pure snark" edits), but it's not as bad as you're making it sound. --Luigifan18 (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Okay, before I get yelled at, I'd like to explain what I meant when I called the topic ban "silly", using a few examples relative to the site's official explanation of "Snarky Point of View" (e.g. snark is welcome, but good information and high-quality writing is prioritized over petty sniping and wisecracks):
  • "Mental diarrhea" remark on Indigo child page: Snark for snark's sake (i.e. not proper SPOV). A clever joke IMO, but I agree that it's not clever enough to be spared the axe. Bad SPOV, mediocre joke quality: not worth keeping.
  • Potshots at Ted Haggard on Repent America page (not my writing, but still being used as an example): Snark for snark's sake (i.e. not proper SPOV), but the presentation of the joke is fucking hysterical. Bad SPOV, good joke quality: worth keeping.
  • Comparing William Afton favorably to Donald Trump (I couldn't re-locate the page where I wrote this, and yes, I did look through my contributions list): Punchline to a brief explanation of who William Afton is for the benefit of readers who don't follow Five Nights At Freddy's lore (the subject of the article was already mentioned to be used as a model for William Afton in memes, hence me feeling the need to explain who William Afton is), thus being an improvement to the overall quality of the article. The joke itself is a bit shoehorned in, though. Good SPOV, mediocre joke quality: worth keeping at least in part (the snarky remark at the end might need more revision, or may even warrant removal if it's really not funny enough).
In short; I agree that I shouldn't be going out of my way to make snarky remarks and petty snipes that don't add much actual quality, nor should I be snarking anywhere near as often as I was snarking in the past couple of months; I can agree that that was excessive. However, I'd still like to be able to snark once in a while if I can think of a sufficiently good joke (and I do think the quality bar should be rather high here, since, like I said, I should be snarking less often than I'm currently snarking) and/or work it into the article in a way that actually helps the article's quality instead of just being a random wisecrack. As our official guidelines state, snark should not be a cheap substitute for good writing or good information, and I'd like to keep it that way. --Luigifan18 (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I got the date wrong of the topic ban, but it doesn't change my point. You've been violating the ban regularly since it was initiated. Bongolian (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
I can agree that a lot of my recent snark was… not that great, and I shouldn't be trying to wisecrack if it detracts from an article's quality, but I don't want to be told "never snark again" because SPOV is such a big part of RationalWiki's identity. (I found my example of snark that actually contributed to a page (or at least is the punchline to a good contribution) with a bit more digging, by the way. It's on the Tom DeLay page.) --Luigifan18 (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
As Reichtangle said here you can't add snark. It doesn't have anything to do with the snark being good or bad. In most modern societies, people usually try to obey the laws not necessarily because they agree with them, but because they understand that's the only way a we can live in a society. The political arena is the place to change what we disagree with (indeed, you can ask for a vote to repeal your topic ban, but if I know this place well, the chances that you'll succeed right now are extremely low, and I'd guess that you might end up with an even stricter sanction, as the one I proposed). There is a group of people that doesn't abide the rule of law when their demands are not met. We call them criminals. Please, don't be a criminal (or, as we call them on wikis, a vandal). According to your profile, you're a biologist. Luckly for you, we love biology here on RW. Why don't you try writing about it? Take one of your old college books and use them to write or expand an article here. Maybe in the future, we might remove you snark topic bans.
GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 01:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
What I mean is you should ask for community approval in the first place. Let's assume a hypothetical here, that you wouldn't be sanctioned for topic ban evasion: if you ask the community for our opinions, and we say no snark, that means no snark. Why that so hard to grasp? Carthage (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Sure, if I propose a potential edit on a talk page and you tell me it's rubbish, I won't go through with it. Saying "you're topic banned" tells me nothing about the quality of the proposed edit. That's not hard to grasp. Again, I've already done that for a few potential mini-essay-type edits that I'm not sure if I should go through with (on Freedom From Atheism Foundation and spirituality, to be more precise) and I've heard nothing.
Speaking of mini-essay-type edits, I recently did one on the I'm not prejudiced, but... page that I'm particularly proud of, and I feel is a good representative of one particular kind of mini-essay, that being the kind that elaborates on a point that the article briefly touches on; the point of the mini-essay is to add nuance and clarity to the main article's point. The main article point in question was the statement that "men tend to be stronger than women" is not sexist because it describes a biological fact, and the mini-essay adds that this is only the case when one talks about averages across an entire population and cannot be assumed to be true of a small sample or a pair of individuals (and making such an assumption without consideration of other factors, such as how much each individual works out, would be considered sexist). I also link to the hasty generalization and biological determinism pages for further relevant reading. Naturally, all of this is in a side note in order to not bloat up the host paragraph. --Luigifan18 (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Do you not get what a topic ban is? Carthage (talk) 03:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
This is not the first time that a person commits a punishable action during the same time that punishment is being considered for that person. Bongolian (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
The point of me bringing up that edit is that a mini-essay is supposed to be a high-value contribution to a page, and the edit I mentioned was an example of such a high-value edit. --Luigifan18 (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Is this a topic ban violation or not? Carthage (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
It is immediately recognizable as Luigifan18's style and would seem to be pushing the envelope. Bongolian (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it is pushing the envelope, which is why I called attention to it and asked if anything was wrong. If something is wrong, then please change it. --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
…And I see that you've already done that. Fine, fine. Not sure why you removed the mention of the movie, since that was there before I edited the page, but whatever. I don't want to bother people with any more edit wars. --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Voting on sanctions for Luigifan18 for repeated disregard of their topic ban[edit]

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: Pi months ban and extension of topic ban succeed, perma fails.

Pi weeks ban[edit]

  1. The minimum. Plutocow (talk) 07:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  2. Scream!! (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  3. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  4. Really only voting for this in the weird situation that something stronger doesn't pass. -- Techpriest (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  5. Carthage (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  6. While I lack personal knowledge on the subject and the spoons to do personal digging on it sufficient RW'ians who I respect have convinced me something has to be done. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  1. Luigifan18 already received a 3-week block in March. Bongolian (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  2. My earlier apology for flooding the wiki with lame jokes was sincere. As our article guidelines state, RationalWiki welcomes snark, but it is not Encyclopedia Dramatica or Uncyclopedia, and jokes should also contribute to making accurate and informative articles. In our own words: "However! Dear editor, you are probably not as funny as you think you are. RationalWiki is not Uncyclopedia and especially not Encyclopedia Dramatica. Be funny, and not just stupid. Avoid overused jokes, obscure in-jokes, anything childish, and anything hateful. The snark must support our site missions (as outlined above), not obstruct them. Snark should never get in the way of analysis, and snark cannot substitute for analysis. And for the love of goat — take extra care with articles on living people (see below)." That means shoehorning potshots into RW articles is dumb and I shouldn't do it anymore. Point taken. --Luigifan18 (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
    I think it's worth stating here too: if the point is taken, then you can demonstrate that by accepting the new sanction gracefully and returning as a better contributor having learned the lesson. It's happened before. You can do it. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 01:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    It says a lot to me that everything I said received a huge response from the user in question except this. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    The only reason I ignored this comment is because I was more concerned with the people who were treating me like shit. I appreciate your kind words. --Luigifan18 (talk) 04:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  3. Didn't work last time. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • It makes no sense to vote against a short term ban because you favour a longer term one. Christopher (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I've often thought of that. Perhaps a better system would be to list the 'sanctions' on an acdending level, each person puts their 'ball' into the most severe sanction, which is also taken to be a de facto vote for all the lesser sanctions too? KarmaPolice (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
      • What about people who support one level of sanctions, but are against a higher level? Applying a "yay" vote on one level to all lower levels is one thing, but should a "nay" vote on one level be implicitly applied to all lower levels? I would say that that's… unwise. (I know I may be the last person who should be asking this right now and I'm going against my own interests, but the 3.14 month block is inevitable at this point anyways, and I really do want to help RationalWiki (and avoid a permaban).) --Luigifan18 (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
        • The issue is that 'consensus' of some form needs to be found in such things. If someone [for example] votes for a permaban I would assume they'd be okay [though not hugely happy] for a pi-month/pi-week ban too. Either that or we need to have something pinned on the top of the vote reading 'vote for all the sanctions you would support' or similar. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Pi months ban[edit]

  1. Scream!! (talk) 09:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  2. For the record, I wasn't opposed to Luigifan adding snark last time. I didn't mind the snark. It was just the "mini essays" I couldn't stand. However, here is someone who has freely admitted violating their topic ban because they think their topic ban is silly and they think by violating it they can get it lifted. And here also is someone who has been banned from 3 different websites and still insists on thinking it's the rules of those websites that are the problem. Oh, dear. I don't think this is going to end well. Spud (talk) 09:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
    You seem to have misunderstood my point. I said that I should cut back on the snarky edits, and I will. Most of them were not that funny anyways. I also said that I should run complex edits (i.e. mini-essays) past the talk pages more often to determine whether or not they actually add to their host articles' quality (I didn't do that with the "I'm not prejudiced, but..." mini-essay because I was confident that I had a great piece of work on my hands (and I still am confident, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it here)), and that when I do make snarky edits (which will be a lot less often from now on), I should be held to a higher standard of humor, quality, and adherence to SPOV going forward (i.e. my jokes should not be stupid and petty), because I do sometimes have trouble telling what is or isn't appropriate. All I'm saying is that I shouldn't be held back from making potentially good edits that fit the spirit of RationalWiki for arbitrary and nebulous reasons, and a topic ban on "mini-essays" sounds really fucking nebulous to me (I tend to use that term somewhat generically for sufficiently large and complex edits, especially those involving side-notes). But, again, I agree that I should cut back on the snark, since it does tend to be hit-or-miss for me.
    I also never claimed that TV Tropes, Reddit, or Know Your Meme were the problems. It sucks that I got banned from them, but a big part of the blame lies with me for having a bad habit of pushing the envelope and determining what is and isn't acceptable online through experimentation. As I said, my core principle that I assume every website shares is "don't be an asshole" (though I sometimes have a hard time not wishing for bad things to happen to bad people — not because I hate them, but because I don't want them to hurt anyone else). Luigifan18 (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
    I woke up this morning (earlier than usual, I should add) to find that voting had already started and people were jumping on the "censure Luigifan" bandwagon before I had more of an opportunity to defend myself. I knew that claiming the topic ban was silly was going to be controversial, and I was taking a bit of a risk by saying it, but I knew I'd need to hear what people said about it before clarifying further than I already did. If I'd had the chance to respond to @Carthage's query of "Do you know what a topic ban is?", I'd have been able to say "I get the concept, since I read the page on sanctioned users after the topic ban was placed (and I even asked for clarification on the etiquette for editing that page and suggested that the list of sanctioned users should be more explicitly only touchable by mods), but I don't know how seriously I should take this topic ban, and Plutocow and the rest of the community didn't ever really get around to defining the topic ban after its ATIM ended beyond "mini-essays", so I don't have any idea what does or does not count as violating it". I can understand getting another mainspace-specific block for pushing the envelope too far, but I really didn't have any better means than trial and error for figuring out the terms of the topic ban, so a pi-month or longer block (heck, maybe even a pi-week block) is more than a little bit unfair, and I certainly don't think I should be locked out of the Saloon Bar or my user pages. Luigifan18 (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  3. Hey LuigiFan18! Next time you break the rules you will probably be permanently banned ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 11:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  4. Not too harsh given Luigifan18's endless wasting of others' time and energy by arguing about rules and agreements endlessly in place of starting out by honoring them. (Your only remaining recourse for adding "snark" and "mini-essays" given the topic ban is to propose it on a talk page and let others do the adding if they like it. But if you suggest a lot of such stuff people don't care for, the topic ban may end up broadening to include that too.) --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
    To be honest, it was less "arguing" and more pushing the limits (which is admittedly kind of dumb). I reverted the rollbacks mainly to preserve my grammar adjustments that were wiped out along with dodgy side-notes and questionable statements (as I said several times, the rollbacking was overkill), and I even took the time to keep some of the bad side-notes out while restoring the grammar checking. (Some of the snark was really just a vehicle for posting relevant links that I couldn't find a place for in the existing text, anyways. I'm not saying it was a good idea, just that I had a somewhat legitimate reason for doing it. This also only applies to a handful of the snark edits; a lot of them were just lame attempts at humor.) Again, I sincerely apologize for the junk edits, and I'll be more careful going forward. --Luigifan18 (talk) 12:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
    Also, in fairness to me, I'm legitimately not sure how to avoid breaking this topic ban, since "mini-essay" and "snark" are rather vague concepts. Thus, I don't think a pi-month block is remotely fair. (Blocking me for a few days when I screw up particularly badly would be fair, but I really don't have much to go on but trial and error in terms of what I'm not supposed to do.) Luigifan18 (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
    Hey @ApooftGnegiol, @Bongolian, & @GeeJayK, I just came up with a way I can possibly write mini-essays while still abiding by the topic ban. What if I make a "mini-essay sandbox" in my userspace with large and/or ref note-including changes to mainspace articles (e.g. versions of portions of the mainspace articles with the changes included) and let you guys vote on them, give feedback, and transfer them into the articles proper if you like them? Would that be a workable solution? --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  5. Yes. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  6. Luigi said least twice in this discussion that he won't respect the topic ban. That is enough for a harsher block. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 15:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
    I'm willing to respect the snark ban on account of humor being very subjective and me not really trusting myself not to descend into constantly taking petty potshots at cranks and Republicans (I'm pretty sure doing too much of that was a factor in my ban at Reddit). The only reason I won't "respect the topic ban" on mini-essays is because I see any sufficiently large or complex edit as potentially being a "mini-essay" (making the topic ban either meaningless or excessively restrictive) and I firmly insist on my mini-essays being judged on a case-by-case basis. A bad mini-essay or one that engages in excessive speculation and/or diverges too much from the scope of its host article should be removed, and I fully support your right to do so. I'd just like you to tell me what was bad so I can record the objection and avoid doing that in the future (and/or revise the mini-essay to address the objections if I find that to be feasible). Likewise, if a mini-essay is good, please tell me what you liked so I can do that more often. --Luigifan18 (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
    We already told you many many times, even on this page: they are redundant, unsourced and highly opinative. I feel like you want us to judge them case-by-case, but that's not going to happen. Add something with good sources and I doubt people will oppose. I also gave you a suggestion that you seemingly ignored. You are a biologist. Why don't you write about biology then (again, using sources)? The Wiki definitely needs more content on the subject. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 15:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, I do want them judged case-by-case; that is something that I have repeatedly said. You have just given me a clear and concrete criticism that I can work with (and admittedly one that applies to a lot of my mini-essays); avoid personal opinions and unsubstantiated claims. Thank you. While avoiding unsubstantiated claims is admittedly difficult (I only have so much time in a day, and sometimes I feel like I should say my piece while it's on my mind and then figure out what to back it up with), and the redundancy issue is kind of built-in (and not even that bad if tempered well), given that mini-essays are designed to support the main article, I have been working on the personal opinion bit (and correcting issues of other people doing that in mainspace); as I've said elsewhere in talk pages, a wiki is a collaborative writing project and should be the reflection of a community’s collective opinions, so anything that can't be said on behalf of RationalWiki as a whole probably shouldn't be said at all.
    I'm currently working on a draft about a biology book, WTF, Evolution?! by Mary Grunbaum. Admittedly, even outside of my barely having started, I feel like it's lacking a master touch that I can't quite put my finger on… --Luigifan18 (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  7. Carthage (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  8. Probably more than fair at this point; they are in danger of sanctions yet they're still arguing that they won't follow their topic ban. Plutocow (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not saying that I won't follow my topic ban per se (again, my snarking is… not the best and I need to cut back), just that it's crippling my ability to contribute to the wiki as written (especially the proposed complete ban on ref notes — those are incredibly useful for squeezing more information into a page without bloating paragraph size). Then again, as you may have surmised, I kind of suck at debating or defending myself… I think I need outside help. --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
    If you suck at defending yourself, maybe that's a sign you're in the wrong. Plutocow (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  9. I've come to the conclusion that they have a very hard time listening to what everyone else is saying and insist on continuing behavior that got us here in the moderator board once again. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 18:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
    *sigh* Okay, guilty as charged. Even when I try to improve, I have a bad habit of slipping back into bad habits. I am trying to improve, believe me, but I'm gonna need you guys to have a bit more patience… ☹️ --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  10. Bongolian (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  11. In the future no one can even attempt to say he wasn't warned.-Flandres (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
    We can agree on that much. As I said earlier, I had no idea how seriously to take the topic ban until this started. I now know to take it quite seriously indeed. --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  12. Probably about time. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  13. He admits to pervasive violation of the topic ban, says he wants to keep doing it, continues litigating old issues he lost, and posts these interminable walls of text that don't engage the topic at hand honestly. Why bother trying to take him seriously if his effort going back to the beginning is indistinguishable from utterly jaw dropping bad faith? He's never accepted sanctions and he's not interesting, well informed, or good at what he professes to want to do here in violation of existing sanctions. Be done with this guy already. Nutty Roux (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    Actually, I have been willing to accept the snark and excessively-long ref note sanctions since this ATIM started. You have raised valid points about many of my attempts at snark being lame and the insertion of whopping, rambling walls of text and totally unsubstantiated claims — even in ref notes — being unhealthy for mainspace, and I have to agree with those criticisms. In "admitting to pervasive violation of the topic ban" and "continuing litigating old issues that I lost", what I am trying to do is acknowledging that I have made serious mistakes in the past and stating my intention to do better going forward (while also asking not to be treated too harshly so that I can actually do valuable stuff for the site). I only want what's best for RationalWiki, and while I feel that I have made several great contributions, I can also think of several portions of my writing (including some predating the topic ban) that I'm… less happy with. I'm also not sure what you mean by me refusing to engage with this honestly, since I am engaging honestly from my own perspective. I know that I need to take a time-out in atonement for my errors and that a topic ban of some degree is necessary to rein in my worst weaknesses as a writer. My big problem right now is that the complete revocation of ref note privileges will cripple my ability to contribute to RationalWiki in the future. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  14. -- Techpriest (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  1. I agree that the unfunny snark has been problematic as of late, and I'll refrain from making dumb jokes going forward. (What I said earlier is that I should be allowed to make good jokes. 😜) Luigifan18 (talk) 12:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
    In my further defense, a topic ban against "mini-essays" and "snark" is vague enough that it's legitimately difficult to tell what would or would not be considered a violation; furthermore, the vagueness and Plutocow explicitly leaving the terms undefined in the previous ATIM left me unsure how seriously I should take the topic ban and with no way of finding the boundaries except through trial and error. Therefore, I'd argue that a lengthy block on the grounds of violations of a vague rule is extremely unfair. (I can definitely understand a short block in the event of my pushing the envelope way too far, as has happened once or twice in the past month, though.) Luigifan18 (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
    And another thing… I made it clear on my userpage, long before the topic ban was placed, that I want my mini-essays to be judged, reviewed, revised, and ultimately approved or rejected by the community; and if a mini-essay is rejected, I want to be given a clear reason for the rejection so I can put that on my userpage and keep it in mind when writing in the future. A wiki is, by nature, a collaborative writing project, and RationalWiki was designed to operate as a mobocracy; I came up with the idea of classifying certain edits as "mini-essays" with those points in mind. I further clarified this position while defending myself in the last ATIM, insisting on mini-essays being judged on a case-by-case basis; and when I have reverted the removal of mini-essays, I have done so with the aim of opening discussion and learning more about why they were removed and with the intention of revising the mini-essays to be better contributions to the host articles. If I could not find a way to overcome the objections (such as on the Cleanse and Ark Encounter articles), I have let the removals stand on the grounds that the mini-essays in question were not healthy for the host articles to begin with. I'm objecting to being blocked (and being dogpiled yet again) on the grounds that I sincerely want what is best for RationalWiki. --Luigifan18 (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
    The terms of the topic ban were perfectly clear: don't add mini-essays or snark. All you had to do was stick to substantive, informational edits. Or hell, even just do grammar checks. The fact that we're here indicates that you're willfully misunderstanding, since these terms were explained quite clearly. Even the term "topic ban" is self-explanatory. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 01:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    And I'm saying that there appears to have been a lot of confusion on what a topic-banned mini-essay is. "Topic ban" is indeed self-explanatory, but "mini-essay" is less so. As I've said, I see any sufficiently large and/or complex edit on mainspace, funspace, draftspace, or most of projectspace as potentially but not necessarily a mini-essay. (Talkspace and the Saloon Bar follow something more akin to forum-style rules, and essayspace and userspace are more of an "anything goes" type of deal where the concept of a "mini-essay" does not apply.) In short: I often define substantive, informational edits as mini-essays. This makes topic-banning "mini-essays" sound completely unreasonable. --Luigifan18 (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    My two cents: I really don't care what you call them, mini-essays, snark, or whatever. What you have a tendency to do is engage in unnecessary ad hominem attacks with sweeping generalizations, without any data to back the insults up. Because these arguments are obviously very weak, this brings down the strength of the whole page, and makes it very easy for people to dismiss the rest of the page as immature fluff. This happened, for instance, with the Simon Webb page; Webb's response to the page was largely to attack your weak and frankly unnecessarily insulting ad hominem on his photo (which was removed after other RW sysops figured it out), it was easily the weakest point of the page after the rewrite. You need to figure out better ways of debating a subject without resorting to this sort of thing. Obviously RW, as a whole, has a bias and proclaims it loudly, and there certainly are some RW articles that engage in some mudslinging and snark... but this sort of thing is "more allowed" if such is backed with data, and is not just a generic sweeping insult for generic sweeping insult's sake. (I think that's one problem a lot of people have with the "strike out" humor... that too often crosses the line into unnecessary ad hominem.) BobJohnson (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    I agree that I've been getting sloppy with my writing lately and a topic ban of some level is currently needed to keep me from getting out of hand (especially in mainspace; funspace, userspace, essayspace, and the Saloon Bar have greater tolerance levels for bad writing to greater or lesser degrees) with shit like petty potshots (i.e. blatant, unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks) and paragraph-length side notes. I just think that a total ban on ref notes is excessive and will cripple my ability to contribute to RationalWiki. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    Anyways, thanks for giving me a clearer picture of the kind of "mini-essay" edits that are seen as problematic. Now we can be on the same page. --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  1. I'm seriously balking at the idea of a pi-month ban given that I have projects under construction (mainly the Progress & Regress Pokémon project, but I also have some book page ideas, one of which I started last night). --Luigifan18 (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
    Suitable response Carthage (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
    Actually, would it be possible to retain editing access to my userspace during this block, and only my own userspace (e.g. the Progress & Regress Pokémon project)? Or is that too complicated and/or more than I deserve? --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
    Technical issues aside for the moment, there is already some skepticism by others about the value of that page. I think at best it could eventually be destined for Essayspace, certainly not Mainspace. Not everyone here is interested in gaming, or the Mario franchise or Pokemon. I for one have very little interest in gaming and am not impressed by 'influencers'. Bongolian (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
    Basedgolian Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
    Eh, I thought there would be technical problems and it wouldn't be feasible, but I figured it was worth asking. I backed up the page, so I can make do and just post any updates I make during my block when I return. And there is no freaking way my Progress & Regress Pokémon project is suitable for mainspace. It's too much of a personal and niche-interest thing, and RationalWiki was not designed for hosting fakemon. The Progress & Regress Pokémon may be designed to reflect and support Rational Wiki's mission, but they are not missional in and of themselves, so userspace is the best place for them. --Luigifan18 (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


  1. Oxford commas! Scream!! (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
    A daft motivation, though I'm neutral on a permaban given what I wrote for the months vote above. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  2. Given his edits and the fact that pretty much all of his edits scream "bad faith", I doubt he'll ever learn. Not to mention he started begging for his tools in the past. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
    Wow, you've almost completely misrepresented me. I have no idea what you mean by "bad faith", and while I did ask for my sysop tools back in the first thread you mentioned (on account of several months passing since the sysoprevoke, my sincere belief that I'd been editing in demonstrable good faith, and the initiation of my Progress & Regress Pokémon project aiming to kickstart a new wave of growth for RationalWiki — I hadn't accounted for one of my Saloon Bar threads disgusting everyone and making me come across as a bit… psychotic), the second thread you mentioned was not a request for the restoration of my sysop status (it was shortly after the topic ban, so I felt that I didn't deserve the tools on account of recently abusing the community's trust); it was simply a request for the deletion policy to be amended to endorse the complete removal of vandalism edits that incorporate overly-large text, obtrusive images, and otherwise make RationalWiki pages look somewhat like the Haig Report. --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  3. This guy is a waste of time. Nutty Roux (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  4. Per Nutty. At some point you have to ask if a user is worthwhile to keep around if all they seem to do is cause inane arguments. -- Techpriest (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  5. After the recent… incident it's safe to say this user has crossed the point of no return. Just don't use RW if it's gonna affect your mental health that much. Plutocow (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    Goodness, no!!! RationalWiki is not at all harmful to my mental health. I was only trying to express how much it hurts that everyone here — people who I admire and respect — are jumping on the “bash Luigifan” bandwagon and supporting both a long 3.14-month ban (I really don't want to be doing nothing to build up the Progress & Regress Pokémon project for that long) and an extremely restrictive "no ref notes" topic ban that will make it extremely difficult for me to make good contributions to articles. What hurts even more is all the people advocating a permaban and treating me like some Kenneth DeMyer-tier less-than-worthless vagabond. All I was looking for in that ill-fated remark was recognition of what I've done well in my time on RationalWiki so I don't feel like you fucking hate me, I can feel a bit better about my upcoming forced sabbatical, and I can know what kind of stuff to focus on doing when I return. Using the phrase "slightly suicidal" for that purpose was unnecessary, it was over-dramatic, it was manipulative, it was foolish, and it was wrong, and I'm sincerely sorry for marginalizing mental health issues and just being insensitive in general. I did not intend to make a threat to commit suicide or for my words to come across that way; I was just mentioning a thought that briefly crossed my mind and that I quickly dismissed. (The "call of the void", if you will; I think it was Sigmund Freud who coined the term. It's not the first time I've had such thoughts, either, but I keep them firmly under control.)
    And @DuceMoosolini, I did in fact notice and appreciate your words of encouragement and support. I was just too busy trying to defend myself from everyone else treating me like dirt to acknowledge it. I have also been listening to your criticisms and doing my best to listen and repent, even if it doesn't seem like it and I've been bludgeoning the processWikipedia here. I am begging you, @Plutocow, @LongStylus, and everyone else to reconsider and vote against the permaban option. The only reason I didn't say this as soon as Plutocow voted to permaban was because I got a mental-health check block from Cosmikdebris; I know they meant well and wanted to help me collect my thoughts and take care of my well-being, but it ended up just letting people think of me as an arsehole. I wanted so very badly to apologize and set the record straight the instant it became clear that my poor choice of words was upsetting people and making my situation worse. If my behavior does appear to be deteriorating, it is only because I'm extremely stressed out and I've been bouncing around the stages of grief (I think I'm somewhere in the anger-to-bargaining stages over the expanded topic ban). I've already accepted that the proposed 3.14-month block is going to happen and that I deserve it, so please forgive me for acting like a douche in this ATIM. I'm sorry to have caused everyone here so much trouble. I only want the best for RationalWiki. Anyways, I think I should go now. I have to figure out how I'm going to spend my free time for the next few months. Luigifan18 (talk) 04:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  6. Exhausted my patience. This user is now behaving even worse and is now saying that our rejection of this moronic Pokémon thing is killing their main reason for being here. By all means, let me add another nail in the coffin. No wonder this user is banned from so many other websites. I suggest this user find an online community that doesn’t have rules of conduct or expect them to be followed. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I came back from the dead specifically to vote for this. Luigifan, my mental health isn't perfect either, but even on a bad day I would never threaten suicide to get my way. Doing that is a spit in the fucking face to me and other people struggling with mental health. LongStylus (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
    @LongStylus, you're right, and I feel especially obligated to apologize to you. I did not intend to denigrate you or anyone else who has actually struggled with severe suicidal thoughts. Call of the void is one thing, actual depression is another. Holy crap, that was insensitive of me. And my apologies if I made an unwarranted assumption about your condition, but what you said implied that what you have to deal with is much, much worse than my issues. I am so, so sorry. Please be merciful. This isn't going to happen again. --Luigifan18 (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  1. Wut… Really, Scream? Really? --Luigifan18 (talk) 12:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
    Yup!! Scream!! (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  2. Not a vandal. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 14:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
    Really? I thought I was engaging with the criticism by admitting that I could be doing better than I currently am and asking for mercy on account of the harshness of these sanctions making it difficult for me to do my best to be useful to RationalWiki. I agree that petty snark and long, off-topic, unsubstantiated tangents aren't helpful and I need to stop doing that kind of shit, so some degree of topic ban is warranted for the time being. I'm trying to cooperate with you guys, I really am, but it can be hard for me to take in others' perspectives. (Ugh, having autism really sucks sometimes. 😑) Heck, the edit warring that started this whole mess (particularly on Ark Encounter) was an attempt to cooperate (albeit on my terms to some extent) by asking for clarification on your problems with my writing and trying to adjust said writing into something we could all be happy about before we resorted to throwing it out entirely. I only want to help RationalWiki, because I love this site (as shown in my attempt to design a mascot for the site branching out into an attempt to spur more growth for the site by bringing in Pokémon fans, particularly Lockstin and his followers; I've watched a lot of his videos and looked at some of his Twitter posts, and I think it's safe to say that he'd love RationalWiki at least as much as I do). --Luigifan18 (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
    As someone who's been playing pokemon games for almost 24 years, I couldn't give a rat's ass about your stupid essay and the link between Gen 1's colours and politics because of Gen 1 being "Red & Blue" (yes, I've seen that stupid BS theory you mentioned months ago and not only does it sound stupid as hell, you're also the first one that links pokemon with fucking politics. Chillpill, mate!). What would you make of "Gold & Silver", then? Or "Sun & Moon"? Or "Fire Red" & "Leaf Green"? Or the fact that Japan had Pokemon Green? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
    Actually, I'm also gonna pick up on this Pokemon angle, since it's a symptom of your larger problem, Luigifan. You keep pushing this Pokemon side project onto the Saloon Bar and insisting that people engage with it (and somtimes whining when we don't) despite the rest of us vocally finding that behavior annoying. You're thinking of yourself and your wants instead of the needs and desires of the community. So here's my point: a good writer, especially a good mainspace writer, thinks of the reader first. What information does the reader need to know? Will the reader understand the point? Is this article a good reading experience (properly illustrated, good grammar, no blocks of text, etc)? You don't do that. Instead, you damage the reading experience by inserting huge "mini essays" in ref notes, interrupting the flow of the text. You insert jokes that are meant to make yourself look clever rather than engage the reader. And when you're called out on that, you prioritize your own desire to keep your oh-so-clever jokes in these articles over the health of this collaborative project. Until you have the self-awareness to understand the fine line between being funny and being annoying, you can't be trusted to edit without the limitations of these topic-bans. Until you have the maturity to understand that we're trying to help you here, you won't fit in. So you can respond in two ways. You can acknowledge the points being made here, realize that we're not the bad guys ganging up on you, and take the sanction with grace before returning to do better in the future. Or you can continue insisting that you're doing everything just fine and making yet more empty promises. Maturity requires self-reflection. If you can't do that, then you're not up to the challenge of changing your ways and meaningfully contributing to a wiki. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 01:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    That's right, a good main-space writer would think of the reader first. I don't know if that charge is persuasive given the number of hobby-horses we have operating here. Do autistic people even recognize snark when they see it? On the other hand making a rule against dumb jokes is hilarious. UncleKrampus (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    I have been recognizing your points, i.e. adding lame jokes just because I can or writing inordinately long side-notes is bad. I actually love snarky humor, which is one of the main things that drew me in to RationalWiki in the first place. And we… already have a rule against dumb jokes (which I have admittedly not been doing a good job of following). It's called the SPOV caveat (well, maybe it's not formally called that, but I digress). I cited it earlier. The summation is that jokes still have to be informative, and not just stupid. As you said, I can't be trusted not to cross the line between funny and annoying right now, which is why I need to cut back on the snark. As for "prioritizing the desire to keep my dumb jokes", I… haven't exactly been doing that per se; I've been re-inserting my mini-essays that I thought were salvageable with the aim of trying to make them better, asking what fell flat and still needs to be worked on. In the cases where I really couldn't think of any ways to improve a given mini-essay enough to overcome objections against them (as in Ark Encounter), I've more-or-less-gracefully stopped trying. However, I'll admit that I lost my cool about this in the last December, January, and February and took the desire to maintain my contributions well beyond reasonable levels, and for that, I have to apologize for causing unnecessary drama. Anyways, I don't see much point in continuing to argue on my own. I've brought this fiasco to my behaviorist's attention, and we'll be discussing it this Tuesday. --Luigifan18 (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    Okay, a few other things, specifically about the Pokémon side project. Red and blue dichotomy is not just a Gen 1 thing; look at the box art and mascot legendary designs as well as the names. It's cropped up in Gen 3 (Ruby & Sapphire), Gen 4 (Diamond & Pearl), Gen 6 (X & Y), Gen 7 (Sun & Moon), Gen 8 (Sword & Shield), and Gen 9 (Scarlet & Violet). Also, part of the reason for making the Progress & Regress Pokémon project so big is to try and bring Lockstin on board. I'm a huge fan of his, and going by the content of his videos and what he posts on Twitter, he has what it takes to be a really good contributor here. Much better than me, at any rate. He also has a big audience on YouTube and a dedicated Discord server, and I'm hoping to bring them in to help the spread of RationalWiki's values. --Luigifan18 (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    Groudon: possesses the ability to expand continents
    Kyogre: possesses the ability to expand the oceans
    Dialga: controls time
    Palkia: controls space
    Xerneas: embodies life
    Yveltal: embodies death
    Solgaleo: emissary of the sun
    Lunala: emissary of the moon
    Zacian: Holds a sword to transform into a dark souls bossits Crowned Sword form. Sibling of Zamazenta.
    Zamazenta: Holds a shield to transform into its Crowned Shield form. Sibling of Zacian.
    Koraidon: Pre-historic version of the pokemon Cyclizar.
    Miraidon: Futuristic version of the pokemon Cyclizar.
    Lockstin: Youtuber with 1,14 mil. subs who's basically Discount MattPat (The Game Theorists), including Clickbait thumbnails, overfixation on certain video games and ALL CAPS WORDS in titles.
    Luigifan18: Trying to go for an "A-HA" moment, by presenting pokemon that are polar opposites of each other which proves politics!1!1!
    Water & Fire are also polar opposites. This would mean that water represents Conservatism, while fire represents Socialism! Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    Luigi, genuine question: why would some third rate MattPatt clone be interested in your giant wall of spew? Carthage (talk) 14:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    Considering that it is an essay and not article and how rationalwiki is past its peak in late 2010's. It's unlikely Lockstin would be interested ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    …Are you trying to crush all my dreams of being a valuable asset to RationalWiki?!? Because that's what you guys are doing.
    I think Lockstin would be interested in my Progress & Regress Pokémon project because analyzing Pokémon is one of his biggest shticks (plus, Pokémon does have a political/social commentary side and he's not afraid to dive into it), and I think he'd be interested in RationalWiki because the values he's shown in his Twitter posts (such as skepticism and anti-authoritarianism) line up well with RationalWiki's own (not to mention that his videos show that he knows how to do his research properly, unlike me). I do agree that my writing could be somewhat cleaner, though. Still, bringing a decently-large YouTube influencer on board would certainly help RationalWiki reach a wider audience. --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  3. Goes overboard at this point in time. Chillpilled (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  4. Agree with Chill. Carthage (talk) 06:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
    @Chillpilled, @Carthage… thanks for your mercy. It… *sniff* It means a lot to me. --Luigifan18 (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  5. I've come to the conclusion that the consensus of pi months is fine. Luigifan18 at least contributed some helpful grammar checks. Some people are voting for permaban who haven't contributed to mainspace in years (and in fact one voter, Nutty Roux, has in fact been openly hostile to RW altogether for a long time). Tell me why these votes should count? If you're only contribution to RW is to pop in when there is mod drama, you're basically a drama troll at this point. BobJohnson (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  6. While I suspect the user might need a 'break' of some form [I try to live by the maxim 'nothing matters very much, and few things matter at all' a la Balfour], this is waay excessive a sanction. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
    I just finished talking with my behaviorist, and she agrees with you. I do need to take a break for a few months; I've gotten a bit too obsessed with this site and using it as some sort of writing repository. Again, I'm sorry for any issues I've caused with shit like terrible snark and massive walls of text. And yes, a permaban is fucking excessive as hell, considering that I only want to make RationalWiki the best site it can be. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  7. I see that some users here think that they shouldn't find other users aggravating. I don't think I have ever read a non-saloon edit by this Luigi. It's not that hard. Try it. You'll live a better life. UncleKrampus (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  1. I accept Luigifan18's apology. I should also apologize for acting too emotionally in my response. As for the accusation of being a drama troll, I actually edit anonymously now, but for the sake of good faith, I won't vote at all. LongStylus (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Extending the topic ban to ref notes in the main space[edit]

  1. Since he said himself he won't abide to the topic ban because he doesn't know if something is a snark and/or a mini-essay, I think we should nip it in the bud. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 14:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
    That sounds unfair, since I do have some guidelines on what is or is not a mini-essay. A quick few sentences of extra information is not a mini-essay. A quick snarky remark is also technically not a mini-essay, but also not a good idea on the grounds that it doesn't really make the article better (I should not be making those kinds of edits anymore, at least not in mainspace). A lengthy diatribe that goes way off-topic is not a mini-essay because it shouldn't be in mainspace anyways (it should be in essayspace). A mini-essay is something that may veer slightly out of the original article's scope, but still enhances the article's content quality enough to be a worthwhile addition. As I've said earlier, mini-essays should be judged on a case-by-case basis. If a mini-essay is truly awful, by all means, remove it. I actually don't mind. I might re-add it and talk about in the talk page, but only because I want to understand your objections and amend my writing as necessary until I've come up with something that everybody can be happy with. If there's really no way I can think of for a given mini-essay to overcome the community's objections and work within its article (as was the case on the Ark Encounter page), I'll ultimately let the removal stand.
    Another reason this is unfair is because I sometimes find already-existing "references" in a page that aren't really references and should instead be classified as side-notes, so I should definitely be allowed to fix those errors. --Luigifan18 (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  2. Yes if you make it a ban on adding ref note text. It takes time for others to clean up Luigifan18's edits and remove pointless notes. Luigifan18 does have a point that pre-existing miscategorized refs can still be turned into ref notes, that's just a style clean-up. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  3. cosmikdebris talk stalk 18:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  4. Bongolian (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  5. - If Lugifan18 thinks it is way too freaking restrictive we are probably on the right track.-Flandres (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
    …WTH? "Too restrictive" means that I have no idea how to properly contribute to RationalWiki under these terms. Do you hate me or something like that?!? Luigifan18 (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
    You aren't restricted from actually writing new content. Any "restrictions" on editing besides the topic ban are self imposed. Carthage (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
    Ref notes are one of the main ways I write new content with minimal risk of paragraph bloat or distraction from what other people have said. --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
    I hope nobody minds that I expanded the Water Cure page to explain why water doesn't get absorbed by the skin. And yes, I went out of my way to track down a source this time. Like I said, I really am trying to improve, so I think the currently-proposed sanctions are a little bit too harsh. --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  6. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  7. Carthage (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  8. Yes Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  9. ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    Luigifan18 more like Soyboyfan1284 ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  10. Of course. Nutty Roux (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  11. Scream!! (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  12. Luigifan is a rare case where a user just cannot be trusted with SPOV. I'm mildly confused how refnotes aren't actual mainspace content but let's leave that as it is. Would personally recommend just extending this to Luigifan not doing SPOV outside of talkpages, but I'd (perhaps in error) assumed that was already the case. -- Techpriest (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    That sounds… fair enough. --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  13. For if/when the user returns from a ban. And to answer your question, Techpriest - I use refnotes mainly to explain terms/situations which the knowledge of context might not be universal - for example, I used one to tell non-British readers that the Attlee Government was perhaps the most left-wing in British history. I might be occasionally snarky in tone within them, but I wouldn't create a refnote simply to be snarky. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
    I know how refnotes work, yes. I'm mostly wondering why we're voting on an extension on a topic ban that already covers mainspace content. To me at least "mainspace" means anything in terms of content on well... the "main" namespace of the wiki (so the one that doesn't have a prefix). It seems redundant. -- Techpriest (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
    Right. Isn't the point of a ref note to add supplementary information that for whatever reason is too bulky or tangential to go within the primary paragraphs of the article? What KarmaPolice mentioned (obscure context) would be one way of doing that. --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
    ...what does this have to do with what I was responding to? -- Techpriest (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
    I was responding to KarmaPolice's description of how they generally use ref notes. It had nothing to do with you. --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
    I slightly misread Techpriest's comment/query earlier, so sorry [I thought you were questioning the purpose of refnotes, which is a legitimate query too (I mean, can't you simply say it in the main body?)] but no, I regard refnotes in mainspace articles to be part of it, and so also bound by their rules/conventions too [which is why on occasion you'll see a refnote from me with their own refs]. So we agree to agree on that one, and as such consider a vote here a mere clarification of what counts as mainspace. And sorry again for the tangent... KarmaPolice (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, ref notes in mainspace are part of mainspace and should be treated that way, with the same standards and all (including citation requirements). What I mean by calling ref notes separate from the main text is that they are split off from the point where the ref note is inserted, with the text in the ref note being a separate block of text from the rest of the paragraph that can be viewed by single-clicking the ref note or looking at the page's note section. This indirect insertion prevents long-winded ref notes from bloating up the paragraph where the ref note is included in the main "reading" viewing mode, thus avoiding the problem of distracting or boring readers with the "primary" text being overly large and rambling. Is that clearer now? --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  1. Way too freaking restrictive. The snark ban by itself makes it hard for me to make good article additions (I find SPOV so much easier to write in than NPOV). I think the current topic ban — which, if I had to guess (I seem to define "mini-essay" differently from the rest of you), means not adding overly-long side notes and/or side notes full of unsubstantiated allegations, blatant hearsay, extreme divergence from the current article subject, editorializing/opinion pieces, redundancy, etc., etc. (and not edit warring over mini-essay rejections) — is quite sufficient to rein my worst excesses in check. Luigifan18 (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
    The topic ban already exists. Trying to worm your way out of an already existing sanction won't work. Carthage (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
    I… kind of said that (the existing topic ban meaning "don't use ref notes in ways that are unhealthy for the article"). It would also help to understand the sanction in the first place. Luigifan18 (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  1. …Why do I even bother engaging in ATIM? I only seem to make things worse. You guys are really discouraging me from, well, doing much of anything. --Luigifan18 (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    You aren't listening to the topic ban.That's why you are here and if you evade the topic ban more then you will be permabanned ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    In hindsight, the existing topic ban is actually fine, and I can work under the restrictions of "avoid ad hominem attacks and bloating pages with walls of irrelevant/unsubstantiated content". But expanding it to a total ban on ref notes will likely paralyze me. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    Why did you make a suicide threat? ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    No, I didn't make a suicide threat, I just mentioned a call-of-the-void thought I had and used very poor wording, without explicitly specifying the fact that the contemplation of suicide was swiftly dismissed. Anyways, I've just launched a mini-essay review board that I intend to use for ref notes and mini-essay-type edits going forward, to open them up to community review before I actually make them. I hope this addresses the weaknesses of the mini-essay concept that led to this topic ban and achieves my original goal of having my writing be scrutinized and refined by the community to achieve maximum quality. --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
    Why are you still insisting on this shit? Carthage (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
    I don't know what you mean by "still insisting on this shit". I'm saying that going forward, instead of making mini-essay edits directly, I will be posting them to a sandbox to let the community look at them and make suggestions, comments, and approval or disapproval. This should avoid the problem of bad mini-essays weakening their host articles while still letting good mini-essays go forward. I don't know what's hard to understand about that. --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
    You're assuming that you have an audience interested in your mini-essays to begin with. The topic ban also says no mini-essays period. No one is interested in you stating the obvious, you do not have an audience. And regardless of quality, the topic ban forbids mini essays period. Carthage (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
    Didn't the topic ban come about due to bad quality? And I was under the impression that it only applied to mainspace. --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
    In mainspace, yes. Isn't that where your mini-essays are gonna go, or are they just gonna be actual essays? Carthage (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
    The point of this new system is that mini-essays will go into mainspace if and only if the community as a whole likes them. Bad mini-essays will be consigned to the dustbin where they belong. If this works around the topic ban, it does so by addressing the reason why the topic ban was established in the first place (the questionable quality of my writing and my in-practice combative attitude towards the removal of bad writing; my intention was to determine concerns about the removed writing and improve it into something workable, but an edit war is still an edit war). This system is, as you suggested, a way of asking for feedback and approval before doing anything that could be controversial. I am entirely willing to let others do the work of inserting good mini-essays to respect the letter of my topic ban as well as the spirit of it. And "mini-essays" are distinguished from actual essays in part by not working as something independent of their host pages. If I decide that a mini-essay is bad for its host page and workable as something completely separate, I am entirely willing to move it to essayspace, as I have done on a few occasions before the topic ban. --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
    I think the entire concept of "mini-essays" in mainspace articles here is a bad idea. In just about every use case I can imagine, this is something that I would strongly discourage. If someone want to express such comments on a particular subject, then they should use the essay space.
    Also, I don't think you're so naïve to believe that creating an entire bureaucracy dedicated to reviewing and voting on your personal proposed mini-essay additions to articles would have any chance at succeeding. Are you just fucking around with us now? —cosmikdebris talk stalk 18:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
    Philosophically, RW is anti-bureaucratic, implicitly (RW:MOB) if not explicitly. We're not going to add a layer of bureaucracy for a single person or concept. Bongolian (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
    Uh... I don't think I'm "fucking around with you". I'm certainly not "fucking around with you" on purpose. I'm trying to create a compromise that allows me to flex my writing muscle while avoiding causing the kinds of problems that I've caused for RationalWiki in the past (and I do have to apologize for those problems, by the way; I never wanted to hurt any of you). A mini-essay should be something relevant to its host page (if I want to just make my own comments on a subject, then yes, I should be using essayspace for that) and, as I've said, it should enhance the points raised in the original article in some way (additional information, caveats, related concepts, potential counter-arguments, etc.). As I said earlier, I don't always draw a distinction between "mini-essay" and "substantial, informative edit". While I could raise proposed mini-essay edits on the host articles' talk pages, I can also see that getting out of hand and distracting from other discussions on the subject, which is why I think a separate sandbox may be a good idea. I certainly don't think you'd have a sudden change of heart on the kinds of "mini-essays" you've taken issue with in the past — long walls of text, unsubstantiated allegations, cheap potshots, irrelevant rambling, etc. — and it would be foolish of me to propose anything that would be blatantly unhealthy for the article I intend to write it in. The point of the review procedure is to help mediocre mini-essays become good, eliminate bad mini-essays before they can be a problem, and allow good writing to be recognized and promoted. Part of my social difficulties is that I don't always know what's appropriate and what's not, which is why I may need help from others to keep me on-track and in line. Also, this review board is intended to be mobocratic, which is why I compared how I envision it operating to ATIM. Again, the point of it is to help me do my best for RationalWiki without causing any more problems. --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
    Incidentally, before the topic ban, I did bring up on my userpage the idea of adding a system akin to the Dungeons & Dragons Wiki's community approval/opposal system for my mini-essays. In basically the same edit where I proposed the idea, I dismissed it as way too much trouble to go to for one editor's contributions, especially when RationalWiki already has its own article-quality rating system. So, part of why it took me so long to come up with this mini-essay sandbox idea is that I wasn't really sure that it was necessary until it became clear that I really do need the extra help to avoid flooding RationalWiki with low-quality crud.
    I'm also in the process of making my first entry to the sandbox, namely a couple of remarks intended for the Love-shy.com page (one about the lack of clarity for Mr. C's reasons for shutting it down, the other about the sexbot idea being tried in Japan and causing some problems there — I'm currently looking at sources and writing citations for the latter). Hopefully I can expect to see you guys there to talk about my ideas. Again, maybe I should be using the talk page, but I don't want to be flooding article talk pages with new sections every time an idea pops into my head.
    Finally, in light of my own problems with ref notes leading to this topic ban, I put a paragraph on our references page explaining a bit more about what ref notes are good for and how they should not be used. In hindsight, maybe I should have brought that up on ATIM before doing it, but I did use your remarks from this ATIM while writing that bit. Anyways, if I didn't do a good job, I'd suggest that another discussion could be opened up to further clarify how ref notes ought to be used so that other editors don't make the same mistakes I did. Again, I'm just trying to help! --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Suicide threats[edit]

This discussion was moved here from RW talk:Blocking policy.

Luigifan18 just dropped one.[4] Was going to indef him, but, to my surprise, our blocking policy doesn't say anything about them. This is dangerous. I think we should amend the blocking policy so sysops can block them on sight. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 19:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I don't think this is the first time this happen. IIRC GC also said some disturbing things a couple of years ago, though I'm not sure if he said he was going to commit suicide. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 19:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Those were "just" self-harm threats and I think we dealt with that by telling GC to knock it off because he wasn't even remotely in a state where actual suicide was a risk for GC; the issue there was moreso the effect it could have on others. We really need a policy/protocol to deal with this sort of thing. Fully supporting, we should also amend the revdel reasons list for it. -- Techpriest (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I said "slightly suicidal", emphasis on slightly. I'm not actually going to kill myself, jeez. I'm just really, really sad and upset that everyone here seems to be turning against me and ripping me apart. I wasn't trying to be manipulative (and I even acknowledged the possibility of coming across that way), I was just expressing my sorrow at the prospect of being kicked off this site that I truly love. I'm sorry that my venting disturbed you, and it won't happen again. --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the proposal, though we'd probably need a vote at ATIM or CS to implement it. Plutocow (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
So, probably a block for self-harm threats and a harsher (maybe indef) block for suicide threats? Sounds like a plan to me. Also, any sysop can enforce the block, and an ATIM case should be open right afterrwards so mods can analyze the issue. @Plutocow feel free to move the thread if you think we shouldn't discuss this here. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 20:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I'll support this measure if I'm not on my forced sabbatical by the time it comes to vote on it. I was just being an idiot and describing my call-of-the-void issues in a way that sounded like a suicide threat. We won't always be so lucky as to be dealing with people acting in good faith but choosing their words poorly. Just… let's please make sure we know what's going on before taking action, okay? Luigifan18 (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────For the record, we should just have a policy on this, regardless of the suicide threat Luigifan just made and it's veracity. wp:WP:EMERGENCY is prior art from Wikipedia policy, which says at bare minimum that revdelling is required and blocking is "at digression". I'd not oppose a blanket "cooldown block" policy, not sure if permanent blocks are a good idea. -- Techpriest (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I say pi weeks cooldown block and rev-deletion. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I think that for any suicide-related block/revdel, the user should also have something like the banner on our suicide page added to the the user's talk page ("If you are considering suicide, you are not alone, and there is help. …). Bongolian (talk) 04:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
That works for me. We shouldn't be applying heavy punishments to people who are genuinely in pain and calling out for help; that could only make things worse. --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Clarifying the proper use of ref notes[edit]

As I have just posted in my own ATIM, I recently updated the Help:References page to give a bit more clarity on how ref notes should and should not be used. While I did take the community's criticisms of my behavior into account (particularly @KarmaPolice and @Techpriest's brief discussion of their own use of ref notes), it was a bit of a rush job, and in hindsight, I should have brought up the idea of clarifying the proper use of ref notes here first instead of taking it upon myself to add to the site's rules and guidelines. Whoops. My bad. Anyways, this discussion is intended to clarify the proper use of ref notes so that other editors don't make the same mistakes that I have. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's the text I added to the Help:References page:

Incidentally, while ref notes can be useful for including supplementary information that might be a bit too long-winded or obscure for the main paragraphs they're attached to (namely by splitting said supplementary information off into separate text-boxes that readers can view at their own discretion), they should still follow similar standards to the pagespace they're included in. For mainspace in particular, that means that huge, rambling walls of text, unsubstantiated allegations, off-topic digressions, and half-assed attempts at humor are bad. We may be jocular and rather informal (particularly in comparison to Wikipedia), but we do have standards and we expect our editors to abide by them.

I don't think that any of this is inaccurate per se, but I do think it might need some work (there may have been some other bad uses of ref notes that I neglected to mention, and there should be some more information on things ref notes are good for), and I feel that it may have been wrongheaded of me to just add this to a guidelines page without consulting the mob first. (I've left it in for now because I'm not sure whether or not this should be removed or commented out from the Help:References page until the mob is able to reach a consensus on clarifying ref note usage guidelines, but I did consider doing both of those things.) Anyways, I'm sure you guys are a bit tired of me right now, but I really do want to avoid the mistakes I've made being repeated by myself or anyone else. --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


Can we archive this shit now? This ATIM has pretty much run its course. Carthage (talk) 04:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I would have thought so. Sometimes we talk about taking away a sysops' mop so they stop blocking; but in this case I think we should take away a user's shovel so they stop digging.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
It's been a week, so yes. I will archive. Bongolian (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)