RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive28

Dysk just nuked the Coop
LGM took away his tech rights and put him in sysoprevoke. As per procedure, we now must discuss it and decide if we want to keep it, and since the coop both was occupied and is right now out of commission, here goes. I don't really think he oughta get them back, this is probably the straightest abuse of rights as you can get. 20:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Will you coop LGM for abusing her mod rights? Or nah? 21:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ...what mod right abuse? 21:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * When she unilaterally indef banned and sysoprevoked me without a cause. 21:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop trying to change the subject! This is about Dysk. Why is it so hard for you to come up with a defense that does not involve using someone else as a distraction from your own conduct! Are you incapable of defending yourself?-Flandres (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Defending myself? I didn't do any of this. I am talking about the one time LGM unilaterally sysoprevoked me and indef banned without a proper cause. 21:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Good. Now explain why that is relevant to this case. "This other person did something" is not a valid defense in this scenario.-Flandres (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well she has a habit of misbehaving. So I don't think it's okay for her to point fingers at anyone when she is dripping mud from head to feet. 21:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Jesus christ man, he fucking NUKED THE COOP. Sorry if I don't give 2 flying shits about your cheap whataboutism on LGM. You got sysoprevoked for trying to restore Dysk's sysop rights after he got sysoprevoked, go cry a river. Also, I forgot to provide logs since I didn't want the procedural shit to get bogged by "waah LGM removed my rights without process". CS has shit on this, I've said it plenty. Either way, here is the Suppression Log. He literally can't claim that he didn't do it, the logs prove it. 21:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I also don't really care about your tantrum, I am talking about mod abuse. Malicious actions that are serious. 21:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Cut the whataboutism crap. Unless you have something relevant to say about Dysk's actions, may I recommend you just shut up. This isn't about you, so stop putting your ego in the door. 21:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed it isn't about me, it's about LGM's repeated offences against CS. 21:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No it isn't, this is about Dysk. Now unless you have something actually useful to add, I'm gonna recommend someone protect this page to be sysop only because you're trying to distract and make this about you. 21:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well yeah, gotta suppress those who want transparency. Gotcha. Gotta defend bad actors when you're one. 21:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * For the record, I’m fully in favour of Sysoprevoking Dysk after that stunt (about 20,000 edits got suppressed). For the sake of transparency in the aftermath I removed the rights from a bot he set up just today (no idea what it was for) and in my opinion that should remain the same. I also removed the tech rights from User:Ze, given that she’s Dysk’s sister and involved in the recent drama (though seemingly not involved in Dyskgate). I’ll leave it up to the others to decide if she gets tech back. --RWRW (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest keeping a close eye on Ze, although I hope she wasn't involved and this is just Dysk going rogue on his own. 21:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hopefully it was an error or misunderstanding. I'm curious to see what the explanation was. Shabi DOO  21:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It probably was a fatfinger. No idea. Maybe. 21:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Are we ever going to talk about the mod abuses of LGM, though? 21:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So, I would wait for Dysk to provide an explanation just because this might be a monumental technical fuck-up...but it had better be a pretty damn good explanation. Also, will everyone please ignore GR and his sad attempts to derail the conversation?-Flandres (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have mostly stayed out of the GR business... except for now. Dude, fuck off - this isn't about you. Stay on topic or fuck right off. AceModerator 21:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't do anything though, Ace? 21:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes you did - you turned a section about someone else's behaviour into a grievance of you own. Don't do that. AceModerator 22:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It isn't about me. It's about LGM. She has a pattern of abusing her power. People here only look at the reactions of the attacked faction (like Dysk) but never care about what caused the reaction (like LGM consistently applying dishonest and hostile tactics). 22:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * For fucks sake you fucking daft dick. This was a section about Dysk and only Dsyk until you rode in and shooting your face off about some spat your having with LGM. This is fucking simple - take your bullshit elsewhere. This section is about Dysk you numb nuts. AceModerator 23:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Since I just had to fold the bit with evidence, here is the Suppression Log again. It has evidence for his actions. Also, I just collapsed GRs comments. 21:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove D’s tech rights. You don’t get to pull that shit. 21:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * He's a staff member. 21:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Doesn’t mean shit. 21:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * LGM did. 21:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Fucking good. D has displayed serious impulse control issues and obviously cannot be trusted. 21:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

That page was annoying me intensely. In a moment of anger I clicked a button to make it disappear. My bad. 21:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, regarding issues with impulse control, remember when someone told people in saloon bar "fucking ass shits, get covid and die"? That person has yet to be punished. 21:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @GR- fucking dead horses is alright with you, we know. Beating them too, apparently?  @Dysk, I forgive you for your easily rectified outburst.  We're only human--Hastur! (talk)  22:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * necrozoophilia, huh. 22:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I will assume Dysk made an honest mistake, but the deletion itself is a deliberate choice done in bad judgement, and the suppression so it didn't show in the logs was also a big, fatal mistake that happened that required a moderator to step in and fix. Regardless, the tech role is a big responsibility and Dysk has failed to honor this through impulse, so while mistakes can be forgiven, Dysk should not have the tech responsibility, not for a very long time, if ever again. 22:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this has very much gravity as a standalone incident. If you can demonstrate that Dysk has a history of pulling such stunts I am willing to listen but otherwise this is a harmless, easily undone fluke-Hastur! (talk)  23:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That self-awareness right now... 22:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I presume that putting vaguely related users, who did nothing, in sysoprevoke isn't a mistake... oh wait, I can't talk about that... of course I agree with the basic principle, that deleting a page is a unforgivable action of grave importance, as the 5 seconds it takes to press the restore button is a tragic loss of administrative time, truly worthy of permanent censure. Carry on. 23:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm asking, why do we give out tech rights? Why do we restrict page suppresion, why is Dysk allowed to delete a page with 2,000+ revisions and the normal sysop can't? Why do we not grant block rights to people who can't be trusted to have block rights, as blocks are easily undone? Page suppression is not to be used really lightly, and it takes a moderator to undo the suppression and also try to view the suppression logs.  23:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Why are you asking? I assume as a mod you would know what the answers are. In any case. Tech rights are given to people who want to use the edit filter, sitenotice, et al. We do routinely give block rights to people who can't be trusted with it, but, imagining for a moment we didn't do that, it would be to avoid users being unnecessarily expelled from the wiki. The bigdelete restriction on deletion is due to the possibility of very large deletions (eg: the saloon bar) taking out the database accidentally by overloading it. This would be a Bad Thing™. Page suppression is eh, tech/mod level delete, functionality is identical. 00:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking for an explanation of what the tools do and whatnot, I am asking, why do people ask for tech rights, why do we grant or reject their requests? And I will argue, that all blocks are easily undone too. Why do you think some people don't deserve block rights if blocks can just be undone? And yes, there's a restriction on bigdelete because it has serious consequences if abused, on top of the revdel abuse. What's stopping you from attempting to bigdelete Saloon Bar? I do not trust you from refraining from your impulses. 00:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This was a one-time fuckup and he admitted wrong-doing. He is a good faith user and ought to be treated as such.--Hastur! (talk)  00:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * They also reverted LGM's sysoprevoke of GR, done, I presume, to enforce a temporary block. Techs should not countermand moderators, that's what the coop is for.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Infinite block Ariel, and without following due process. 00:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Eh LGM, I would grant certain sysop rights to everyone including BoNs if I could... I think everyone should have block rights equally, the very principle of dividing sysops, mods, techs, and editors is distasteful to me. I could argue that this is a form of fascism, directly responsible for many HCM events, and so forth... the wiki would be fairer if there were no techs, no mods, no sysops, and editors gained rights automatically over time. Bans could be enacted via a voting extension, the details are not unworkable, of course it's not the situation here on this wiki right now. Putting my ideologically guided thoughts to one side, what are you saying here? I told you I agreed with your decision already, I don't doubt for a moment that I would have done the same. 00:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That wasn't clear that you agreed with my decision. I am asking to explain your reasoning on why some rights are restricted, even if they seem like they can be easily undone, including page suppression from sysops. I'm sorry if I didn't come clearly. By the way, I don't think your idea of RationalWiki will work; I think we need some form of power difference to prevent abuse. I believe RationalWiki started as this but established moderators/crats as soon as issues cropped up. I do not see anything closely resembling fascism; I see a bunch of people with nearly equal rights as another fighting over what and what shouldn't be done. 01:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I wrote the following:
 * "" of course I agree with the basic principle, that deleting a page is a unforgivable action of grave importance, as the 5 seconds it takes to press the restore button is a tragic loss of administrative time, truly worthy of permanent censure. Carry on. ""
 * Mayhaps this came over as sarcasm? The rest of my commentary here is my attempt at explaining I don't think userrights should be restricted as they are, that power imbalance is unnecessary hirachary (fascism), that you seem to have overreated to a momentary fuck-up in terms of your related actions, and of course a certain amount of confusion as a result. 01:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

You know how you ranted about editor retention issues? What the fuck have you done in mainspace of late? And you had rights to nuke the coup and stir up plenty of drama prior to that. Yeah, my opinion on your bullshit right now is pretty low. If you aren't contributing to the Wiki and are an actual net negative at this point, shut the fuck up. 72.184.174.199 (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I ranted about editor retention because I quit the site in 2019 over an unrelated issue. Yeah I never returned from that LANCB, I ain't here now insofar as I have no intention of contributing. My presence as it is, is merely assisting the wiki in surviving via my maintaince of the edit filter for a year or however long, polishing a few bells and whistles, and seeing if I can get a few asshats to see reason once in a while. Oh yeah I'm on the board cause the fucking software needs updating. 02:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Dysk, I don't think that expressing your tangential desire to grant Sysop to all-comers exactly helps your case. Bongolian (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course, you are a liberal. Indeed you never agreed with me on the nature of that permission. 02:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Mod abuses
I wanted to ask if there will be any time in which the mod abuses of LGM will be discussed? She unilaterally indef blocked me and sysoprevoked me previously without proper cause nor notifying ATIM. 21:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Mod elections. 21:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright. 21:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

So...when will all the previous 13 threads be archived, may I ask? This page is getting rather long.-Flandres (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Feel free. 02:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Useless edit by sysop adds slur
Can we not do this? --Aurelia (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you read the paragraph, you'll see that it's not a slur because the accusations really were dumb. Spud (talk) 10:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's still a superfluous edit using a word that some people consider a slur. If you wanna haha own me in here by saying slurs aren't slurs when they're accurate, or that I'm an oversensitive wokescold, maybe RationalWiki is not the place I thought it was and I'll happily go away and you'll never hear from me again. Otherwise: The paragraph provides enough information that an outright value judgement in the title is really just making the article worse. --Aurelia (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've undone it. Seems unnecessary to me, but why the need for moderator action? Kiko4564 (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm somewhat bit unfamiliar with how RationalWiki works. It seems Sysop is given out more lightly than other wikis, and does not even closely confer the authority usually associated with the role. My apologies. --Aurelia (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say that while the status of the word dumb as a slur is... contentious IMHO (this goes in the territory of "are most of the words we use to describe really bad notions/ideas slurs", in which case, yes, but I'd argue that "dumb" is so far removed from that context that it's not really a slur anymore), the edit is rather useless. It adds an opinion that the content of the article does not reflect in and of itself (rather it explains the incident), so it probably shouldn't be in there. Also, feel free to dispute any section. Normally we use the article's talkpage to do that, not ATIM though. ATIM is more for larger problems between users (so that mods can come in and try to mediate) or dealing with rights abuses. Anyway, it seems like Kiko removed the section, so it's no longer a problem. 14:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Even if one accepts the idea that it's a slur, it's not directed at either a sysop or a group of people (gender, sexual orientation, nationality, ethnicity, etc.) It's equivalent to 'dumb idea'. If we can't say that, we're fucked. Bongolian (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Lol, imagine thinking dumb is a "slur". Please. People need to get the fuck over themselves. 16:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Semantics is not a hot topic around here. If by "dumb" one means, "this says little or nothing," then it is a fairly consistent usage with the adjective, "dumb." The verb "to dumb-down," essentially means to say less, usually for people who don't want to or can't understand more. Dumb as a synonym for stupid, is a mostly harmless though questionable usage. 71.174.3.97 (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Sysoprevoke
I'm in it, I demand to be let out of it. There was no vote, it would be highly irregular given the circumstances to maintain a sanction of this nature beyond the short term, it's disproportionate and unrelated to my recent heat-of-the-moment deletion of your second favourite page. In short, it should not stand. 02:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree - if he didn’t abuse his sysop rights then he shouldn’t had them taken away on someone’s whim. AceModerator 02:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait until the Coop case is over and in the meantime make constructive edits and try to be nice about asking stuff back. I do not trust you anything beyond autopatrol. 02:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool, I don't trust you with mod. That whole trust thing, it is how it is, not greatly important to the situation. As for being nice, this is me being nice... 02:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * At the risk of stepping into a fight… Since LGM and D are going to be working together on the Board, perhaps it would be a good idea for you two to at least come to some sort of détente? Bongolian (talk) 03:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the attempt at diplomacy but I believe Dysk assumes bad faith from me and cannot take suggestions for improvement without firing passive-aggressive at me some more, and I find this nearly impossible to work with. 03:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * LGM I strongly disagree with many of your recent decisions as a mod, the last time it was Kazitor, this time it's Raven. I'm not offering you any suggestions for improvement, it's a difference of opinion, a subjective matter of judgment. 03:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have acknowledged Kazitor's claims of not disagreeing with my behavior but Kazitor was referring to my actions toward a bigoted anti-LGBT member. Whatever conclusion Kazitor has formed about my behavior is highly undermined that the interaction involved someone that was viciously attacking a sexual identity I happen to have (as well as more vile behavior toward gay and trans people). I rather people stop citing Kazitor as a legitimate criticism on my behavior considering the subject matter Kazitor believes is "up for debate" is some of the most vile, personal, and unpleasant things I had to endure, and I also do not believe Raven's criticisms have any merit. 04:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah the way you think about Raven is the way I think about you. This is a two-way street. As for Kazitor... you drove him off the wiki. Funny how you do that. 04:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not believe how I acted is anywhere near comparable to Raven's behavior. I do not think I have to even begin to try to draw the comparisons. As for Kazitor, as I stated, Kazitor was really selective in what examples they did pick to illustrate the narrative of hostile moderators (the essay itself is short is and is devoid of examples beyond that one incident). Kazitor was upset at me being upset at this comment, this comment this comment that had me react with hostility to. If Kazitor believes these comments are in any way acceptable for the sake of RationalWiki:Constructive dialogue I do not believe Kazitor's complaints are valid, and I am not troubled by Kazitor leaving over this. 04:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah you don't care about the thoughts of others, and willfully disregard the principle of free speech. I get it. 05:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not true. Kazitor could've used any other example, but Kazitor, limited by very short length of the essay, was being selective about those examples. It's a short essay. Kazitor could've picked other examples, but the one example Kazitor chose involved a bigot that rubbed on my wounds from being asexual, and that bigot would've violated community standards by making homophobic remarks. It's far from the best example. I tried to take Kazitor seriously at the time, rethinking about the wiki approach to people (I might have even brought up civility standards and I think I've thought about it a few times), and I even remember at the time being disappointed Kazitor left and leaving a message saying I'll miss them. Again, Kazitor's conclusion had a point, but Kazitor's example is bad and undermined that point. In other words, wasn't helpful to me and I was left wondering what else was Kazitor was thinking about and being disappointed that I couldn't get more examples. 05:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Bongolian (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * D should not have sysop. This wasn’t a little mistake, he misused tools to suppress an entire page of debate. He’d do it again too, by harassing people with repeated blocks or deleting the same page over and over again or using some other means of undermining this site and it’s users. He has shown himself to be a hostile element, no better than a troll. His petulant “demand” and antagonism towards someone he theoretically should be pledged to work with also shows this. D has no respect for the wiki or its users, and he means us harm. No sysop. It’s not like he even needs it for anything. It wouldn’t be worth the constant supervision he’d need. 03:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I did have some trepidation in agreeing to unrevoke D, mainly because he was unwilling to explain his actions. By détente, I was thinking of some circumscription around D's editing activities, and mutually agreed upon civility. Maybe I was too quick to agree if this bare minimum can't be agreed upon? Bongolian (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggested D to wait until the coop is over and in the meantime do some constructive edits to show how sysop tools will help them. I got met with hostility, though. Are my suggestions inappropriate? I can explain why I do not trust Dysk with sysop tools, namely because they have misused deletion and page visibility privileges on a large, public page on a whim and cannot be trusted to handle any pages while having access to the delete button. This is on top of block privileges they have used repeatedly on Crow despite being outlined in the Community Standards that advises against disruptive repeated blocking. 03:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The amount of bad faith here is hilarious. You are clearly using your own ideas of future events, as the base for your opinions. I admit, it was a clear example of tech abuse to delete your second favourite page, I freely admit that was my bad. The idea I mean the wiki harm is... interesting, yet false. I've never said anything to anyone which could give that impression. You made it up yourself. In the meantime I am asking for you to remove sysoprevoke, largely because it's a barrier for the upcoming mod elections... which you would no doubt prefer I didn't run for. That is why I must be pushy on this, apologies if it interferes with your master-plan or some shite. As for constructive edits? Gee, I created most of the current edit filters, and was the only one maintaining them for a fair chunk of time. I got onto the RationalMedia Foundation board, admittedly for the sole purpose of getting slacking sysadmins to install software. I created a few pages here and there as I recall. In any case, I'm not asking for sysop, I'm asking you to remove sysoprevoke. Not for any need to have tools, merely because there are associated restrictions. 03:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you believe that it's ridiculous that inferring from your prior judgement you cannot be trusted to change that judgement later on. Admitting your mistakes is only a part of the effort to get people's trust back; actually owning up to the consequences and not demanding favors from others is another. I do not see how your insistence on referring to the chicken coop as "your second-favorite page" is endearing or helping you get your tools back. As for sysoprevoke being a barrier to the upcoming mod elections, the elections will not happen a few months from now; you were lucky you didn't attempt to pull off massive page deletion during November. If you cannot provide a compelling case for enough people to get you out of sysoprevoke (see my suggestions: edit the wiki, wait until the Chicken Coop comes over, exercise basic respect for others) then that's on you and you will have to accept not being able to attend the mod elections. It is not about "interfering with the master-plan or some shit" (ignoring the more unnecessary passive-aggressive jabs at me). As for the edit filters, while you have created them you're the one that decided to abuse your tech powers and lose them. If they need maintenance and you cannot access them because of your prior bad judgement, it's you that left people not trusting of your capabilities.
 * In fact your recent attempt to delete the Coop as well as the constant hostility and passive-aggressive remarks ("Gee," "slacking sysadmins", "apologies if it interferes with your master-plan or some shite", "the amount of bad faith here is hilarious", "you are clearly[...]; this is only for this thread) after the fact makes you even less trustworthy to handle anything mod elections. I still am not convinced you should get your tools back. 04:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No offence, it's not your right to decide that. If you want to prohibit me standing in the mod elections, you are going to have to make a vote here to put me in sysoprevoke. Because right now, at this time, there is no community action confirming it. As for your master-plan as I put it... tell GC and your friends on Discord I said hi, cause I read the whole channel and woop, that was some hell of a read. 04:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No but it'll help if you try convincing me to take you out of sysoprevoke. I do not "want" to prohibit you from participating mod elections. I want to make sure you establish trust again. I have made suggestions already on how you can win my trust back, which can make a difference in you getting your rights or not. We don't know yet if I'm adequately representative of what moderators think should happen to you, but you need to assume I am to make a better case for you. So far, I am not compelled by your case of you not editing the wiki because you're more interested in your plans to install software or update the filters. You can build trust if you edit the wiki and work from there. Yes, discussions about you have taken place in Discord. It's clear and no secret I don't take a liking to your behavior. I don't believe you talk about me with much enthusiasm in the Discord circles you frequent. I'm sure you engage in similar discussions but I'm not interested in them. I'm more visibly frustrated and angry in Discord than on RationalWiki, that is true. I don't see how this is indicative of a hidden master plan though; I want to make it clear I do not have an established means of doing whatever to you regardless what you do. 04:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of editing the wiki, not because I'm doing other things, although I am. But, because the wiki is beyond my capacity to fix, as little more than a giant fucking trash-heap of biased and outdated pages few ever read.
 * If you dislike my behaviour, you might do well to understand why I'm acting this way... you know, I've been extremely angry at multiple points, for the effect this has had on others (not Raven) I care about, this anger is not easily resolved, when a bunch of cunts (not you) are running around, making it worse.
 * You held serious discussions on Discord, on the subject of removing me from the board, because that's clearly relevant to deleting the coop. I guess? I'll make you a deal on that, I'll resign, when my to-do list of software updates has been completed. After all, that was the only reason I got on the board. Is it hyperbolic to describe this form of plotting as a master-plan? Maybe, maybe not. I certainly consider it relevant.
 * As for timing, my point is that I want this resolved now. I won't be doing anything between now and November. I need resolution on this matter before moving forward. I'm aware that I lost some userrights due to my own inappropriate action, but I have no intention of publicly explaining the exact goings on in my mind, as private matters are the primary concern in there. This leads me to post as I have, based on procedure, rules, proportionate actions and the like. 04:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are ever going to be removed from board, you're going to have to be notified either way. At the time I am nervous interacting with you and I figure you'll be nervous and/or having reservations about interacting with me. But again, I have reservations about your overall ability to judge. I have lingering thoughts that you'll be able to put wiki matters behind and try to cooperate with board meetings. I imagine if I hear you I'll try to be pleasant and civil to my ability. I can't imagine trying to give off passive aggressive remarks.
 * I'm not sure how else you can demonstrate trust with me then. I'm trying to think of ways you can show trust or at least try to make an effort about moving on from the incident. Editing the wiki and engaging/responding in content disputes is a simple way of showing activity and participation. If you can propose me something else you can do to help me trust you, I'll listen. I'll try to bite back possible reservations.
 * I believe your anger is valid. I can imagine the frustration of having users talk some harsh, if not outright nasty stuff about you and then having your rights taken off immediately for a mistake you believe to not be serious. It's draining, and it affects your mood in the day. Perhaps this only confirms your suspicions that the wiki is a big circle jerk and laughs at people rather than being constructive and being a collaborative topic. I've seen how Raven was treated right when he joined. I tried to come to his defense when Oxyaeana came in and attacked for not really justifiable reasons. Some users admitted they really don't like Raven and distrust him, which might added to some dripping hostility that Raven responded with. I felt sympathetic for Raven when he met so much resistance at the beginning. I tried to extend a wing for him and tried to help him navigate through content disputes. The frustration is really there, being seemingly unable to contribute anything while people keep undoing your edits.
 * Hmmm, well, if you can't explain what's exactly going on in your mind, you'll have to risk having others like me make incorrect assumptions about you. I notice you asked me to understand you but it will help if you did explain your emotions and thought-processes. Anyhow I figure your plans sound reasonable enough, and I'm now inching to more getting you your tools on. I don't blame you if you think this is a master plan on my end, but I'm just venting a lot in the end and Discord is just a place I vent, and people sometimes give me more helpful advice on how to express to you. I could've done a lot worse on the spur of high emotions but I was told to hold off. Anyhow, at least let me know if you're feeling all right though. I'm feeling a little better talking to you about this. 05:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to voice my support for Dysk getting his sysop rights back, as this was never voted on and sysoprevoke must be voted on. I'd also like to see him get his tech rights back, if only for the sake of forgiveness and mercy in the face of a rare mistake--Hastur! (talk)  05:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Double standards noted. — Oxyaena Harass  10:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Dysk should not be let out of sysoprevoke, at least not yet. Give it time.-Flandres (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Then follow the procedure to vote on putting me in sysoprevoke as required. Nobody has the right to unilaterally put another user in sysoprevoke permanently, or for an undefined non-emergency period of time. 00:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)