RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive109

LeftyGreenMario is fed up with Raven
I've been attending this since June.

Raven has serious attitude problems. He views people that show the slightest bit of resistance as an enemy and assumes bad faith. His accusations of such against people are numerous; see my diffs in this coop, under my giant text block. While his behavior gets evaluated, most of his defense relies on trying to bring up issues and angry, frustrated replies from other users. This has a grain of truth. I think it's a dangerous grain of truth that Raven uses to his advantage. He'll take advantage of any slight in someone else's reaction to what he's doing and use it against them whenever they try bringing up. Perhaps some users should've approached him without combating whatever edits he's trying to make. But it takes two to tango. To expect them to behave while Raven continues to sling insults and passive aggressive snark at them is a very unfair standard. This also doesn't excuse his constant escalation, his his deflection, nor his repeated attacks on people that have only criticized him and haven't made any personal attacks or even a single swear at him.

I do not hate Raven. I do not dislike him. I will still respond with respect to what he will say to me on Discord. I do not take pleasure in banning him. I am extremely disappointed in him. Regardless of Raven's repeated failure to improve especially without invoking conditions or equating other user actions that led to this case, I still expect him to grow and learn after the fact. He has listened to my advice in DMs and can stop if told to stop. He has apologized for what he's done for the community before his last attempted LANCB and has apologized to me in DM. I cannot, however, let him continue without considering the cost of wiki upkeep. And it's been very costly to me. I've taken over an hour trying to look through history and typing up this thing. I could've been writing a good article or just scouring random articles for minor edits. I've been apologizing to users for asking them for assistance and additional opinions on navigating through this mess. I could be having a more pleasant conversation with others.

I cannot oversee every little edit he makes and tell him to stop; this is up for him to identify his own behavior and refrain from passive-aggressive remarks, which he demonstrates as being unable to do. I don't believe some of the users that attacked Raven are entirely innocent, but Raven has been central to the conflicts here, and his attacks have been more widespread, to a wider range of users.

Some alternatives are proposed, which are done because Raven is clearly an ideologically aligned user and has undeniably good contributions, which users wish to keep coming. They want him to continue contributing and leave out his nastiness to other users. A topic ban and an interaction ban have been proposed. The biggest problem is that it requires a degree of expectations that are assumed they'll be met and doesn't really consider the disappointing history Raven's had here. I don't have those expectations. Raven has already tried my patience for several months, as well as a few other users including me (GC and Oxyaena especially Oxyaena failing to de-escalate; maybe the occasional insult from me and Crow) that make my case against Raven more and more difficult. The biggest issue with this proposal is that this behavior change is already an implied provision of a major coop case against him. The coop case has been done because we're expected him to improve. He was told many times to keep a low profile and change his attitude, remain respectful, quietly edit pages, stay quiet if someone reverts. This is already a probation enacted once he came back after an unexpected unban from Ze. One might argue that this is a stricter probation, but I think a topic ban is inappropriate and more of a burden to enforce. The topic nor the users Raven have interacted with are the problem here, Raven is the problem. It doesn't matter how many topics Raven shouldn't engage in, and it doesn't matter what particular users Raven has angered, Raven will likely start a conflict on a tangential topic and maybe argue that it has nothing to do with the topic ban, which means more interpretation from the mod team and more decisions to be made. That there's a convoluted proposal of such a ban at all suggests me that someone is too troublesome to monitor.

On top of this, a little background. Godless Raven has accumulated a negative reputation here well before he joined RationalWiki. He was banned from several Discord servers, including RatCord and RationalWiki Support Chat (the latter, which I've done), but this includes more moderate ones that aren't directly related to RationalWiki. His conduct on the servers cannot and should not be used as evidence for this case, but these indicate long-term problems of his behavior. I believed he could stay here and behave, but I am now pushed over the edge.

Content disputes and edit wars

 * Talk:Anarchism The biggest one he's involved in. There's actually two of them that happened. This one is bad because there were suggestions for improvement clearly spelled out and Raven overlooked it and failed to realize why people were so upset when he tried reinstating edits. The latter links are taken from Coop104.
 * Talk:Martin Luther King Jr.
 * Talk:Capitalism
 * Talk:Tucker Carlson
 * Tucker Carlson opening insult
 * Donald Trump opening quote
 * John Maynard Keynes private life (trying to construct a parallel with Martin Luther King Jr.'s alleged homophobia
 * Facism origin of red fascist

Negative interactions
Godless Raven can acknowledge he's wrong. He can listen to criticism, sometimes. But there's an established pattern of behavior where firm criticism of his character flaws that is prevalent in negative interactions has him trying to point fingers at other users and ask why they aren't being hard on them. This includes both users that have insulted him (GC, Oxyaena, AMassiveGay) and those that have just expressed mostly disappointment (Shabidoo, Flandres, Crow, me).


 * He makes it clear he wants to drive out Oxyaena and GrammarCommie, who has borne the brunt of the negative interactions with him. Also makes it clear to want to drive out Crow.
 * Creates a list for users to expel. He has tried to walk back on this, though his apology is very weak and took too long to walk back
 * Unjustified personal attack to Flandres.
 * Unjustified personal attack to Flandres, using his mainspace to elevate over Flandres and really aiming low at Flandres.
 * Unjustified personal attack to Flandres (reply to above)
 * Unjustified personal attack to Shabidoo. He claims he is quoting Oxyaena to try to justify his personal attacks.
 * Unjustified personal attack to Shabidoo. Really awful stuff, again aiming low at Shabidoo by saying the only thing she's good for is spewing diarrhea in Saloon Bar (Shabidoo makes lengthy well-thought out posts in Saloon Bar).
 * In spite of above, he calls Shabidoo's behavior "toxic" and believes the simple solution is "don't interact with me".
 * Hastur is thanked and he blanket characterizes people as "hacks".
 * Trying to cast me off as lying, that I am pretending he is just ban evading. He requested an indef ban, he got one and I made sure of it through sysoprevoke. I thought it was for his own good (in addition to the conflict, which has spilled over and I had the Chicken Coop kept in mind) and to prevent temptation from him to sign up, but he can't honor this. He seemed to have made it clear he will not try to join. He admitted to scrambling his passwords and whatnot. This is not the first time he appeared to have an honest effort at leaving. While part of the reason of sysoprevoke was for overall community upkeep, I thought I'd help him from giving in to the temptation to come back and continue being a pain.
 * Don't check just the link, the topic. If GR was left banned, this exchange wouldn't have happened. Do you think this reflects my actions poorly?
 * Characterizing my opinion, agreeing with other people, as "LGM and adjacent" that really want to get rid of him. There's no acknowledgment why this is the case.

Raven has driven other users to exhaustion. I had extensive conversations with GC and Crow that have expressing being at wits end. Months ago, considering the allegations of harassment going on between GC, Ze, and Raven, GC has been particularly frustrated, as he told me he was being assumed bad faith and had users refusing to engage with him, and I had to listen to him through voice chat, for probably longer than an hour, expressing his absolute gnawing frustration, back in June. I had to tell him several times to calm down.

Equating actions by other users
Whenever his behavior is examined, he's quick to point to other users that have been nasty to him. This does not justify his behavior. GC and Oxy should've been dealt with, especially if GC told people to "kill themselves" (which he did) but I recall scolding them if I caught them. I remember GC's "kill yourself" comment very well. I don't know if I responded to it through dm or not. I don't find it excusable either. He should've been told off. But this isn't about GC.

This has been noticed by Flandres and by Crow.

Raven is very quick to try to show users with double standards and hypocrites. He's demonstrated to be very vindictive. Whenever he gets in trouble, he will try to take advantage of others' apparent misconduct to bring them down. He will try to use reasons for sanctions imposed on him to try to impose on others.

Any insult or exasperated comment you make to him WILL be used by him to try to equate what you're doing to what he's doing..


 * He demonstrates that hastur treated him well but assumes other users were treating him as a "pest" and something less than human with no acknowledgement on how people got angry at him.
 * When asked to be not invite others to leave, he equates his actions to GC's and Oxy's hostility.
 * Trying to cast off Shabidoo as some hypocrite. After repeatedly told by others to apologize for the hitlist, he finally relents and makes a vague apology.  Has made it clear to apologize on condition that Shabidoo apologizes first.
 * Raven asking Bongolian to please also sysoprevoke GC for misconduct.

Will Raven attempt to remove my tools? Perhaps. I figure he'll try to say I'm abusing my powers for a sysoprevoke and I've sysoprevoked users without due process before, or I said insulting things about Ace on Discord. He thinks I'm plotting. He accused me of this before, on Coop102. Because I'm mad on Discord. He's already implied so. Maybe he'll bring up that I have a tendency to complain about stuff on RatCord and Rational Wiki Support Chat. He knows I do this. I figure he'll use this to try to weaken my case without it quite strengthening his case.

Promises
I'm trying my hardest to cooperate to you. I've discussed subjects with you on Discord and I haven't personally attacked you, though I was frank saying I cannot defend you from other users because I also believe other users have a point and I have felt the difficulty of cooperating with you. You've said you wanted to drop it but this is after you're told to keep a low profile. Try to understand what harassment is (it's not receiving repeated personal attacks), try to assume good faith, try to understand why people have yelled at you, try to deescalate (no passive-aggressive remarks), don't edit war, and try to understand that shared posts on Discord are devoid of context and can be interpreted differently from their original intent. He desperately tries to justify being here with his contributions., which has convinced some users to keep him around, but used that to attack others who haven't had the contributions, particularly Shabidoo and Flandres. I don't blame those that think his positives are worthwhile, but I find his overall conduct unsatisfactory. I gave him what felt like two chances already. As stated earlier, he has DMd me with some pleasant conversation and promises to improve and asking me for advice on how to tackle a content dispute. This was the initial reason I kept him.

People can attest to his positive contributions. He has posted relevant content on RationalWiki Support Chat and engages users in discussion, even against the likes of GC, if I recall correctly. I don't blame people for wanting him around but I suspect they haven't been really monitoring the conflict. Or maybe they did, but they just don't think it's serious or exhausting. If it weren't for the cases earlier, I may have been more sympathetic to keeping him around.

Coop 102
GC wheel warring with Raven and Ze over anarchism. This one has Oxy trying to be vindictive, in my opinion, trying to punish Ace just right after a edit dispute where something is being discussed. GC also survives a demop, as the opposition states that Raven is being overall vindictive. Raven also accepts Oxy's apology.

Coop 104
This is the big coop that nearly got him banned. Started by The Crow, has sourcing that this case takes a little from, but not all of it. The complaints in this one nearly mirror that coop's complaints, but there are still expectations to improve. This coop ended around June 28 due to Raven and Ze attempting to indef ban themselves. Consider that the coop case ended in a tie for indef ban or a tempban. It's reasonable to assume their actions are a tiebreaker for indef banning Raven, it's all over, they're gone. The indef ban, being provided as an option, was the consequence Raven chose. Consider the coop taking place a month ago, which should be reasonable time to expect significant improvement. The sanctions imposed were made assuming Raven will improve his behavior. Here, he also tries to get Crow and GC. He went all out into trying to get the indef ban before LANCB with some really hostile edits from him.

Ze, who was granted tech rights from RWRW after getting them removed, eventually unblocked him and reinstated his rights. To be fair, Raven waited out the ban from that coop. But the unblocking was a mistake, the reinstating of rights was a mistake. They should've stayed indefinitely banned especially during a coop vote where an indef option was present; they practically chose that option!

Raven has tried to improve his behavior immediately after he's unbanned, by sticking to simply editing a page and keeping a low profile but he's reverted to the conflicts that led up to this coop. This coop and the results, the tech trying to undo a coop result and a mod action, seemed to clear to me that Raven's already in thin ice, that he essentially subverted a coop result he chose through a self-ban. This may not be his attempt but a request to be unbanned should've been rejected from here, made even clearer in hindsight.

RationalWiki:Chicken_coop/Archive104
 * And another information block where I list Raven's history to the fairest of my ability

It has instances I haven't even linked in this case that's listed at detail and at length. The behavior in June (it's August now) is same here. Repeated accusations of bad faith. Passive aggressive comebacks. Equating his actions to others. Attempted LANCBs. General unpleasant behavior to several users. GC, Oxyaena, Flandres, AMassiveGay, The Crow, Shabidoo, Tuxer, Féinléiriú. Me. And more.

Compare this one to the behavior this month. I don't see any differences. He tried going all martyr. He's probably going to do this again.

Coop 108
This one, from August 20, only a few days ago from this writing, has him listing off Oxyaena as being uncooperative, a toxic person who undermines the project, and so on but are the same common complaints against him. Furthermore, he cites Coop 104 as precedent for him to start a vote early. It fails, with people giving trouts and people at this point appear pretty exhausted. I couldn't attend, and I was disappointed I wasn't there.

Actions to take
At this point an indefinite ban is in order. A temporary ban of any short length (max 1 year) is not going to change his behavior no matter how hard he insists he will and no matter he demonstrates in the short term he will, not after getting cooped a few times and being granted one month that may or may not even be deserved considering the inappropriate LANCB and successful request to be unbanned from the coop. Considering the results of Coop104 and the expectations most people had, and that Raven failed them within that one-month window, it is not worth it to try to retain him for his good qualities when he has so many negative qualities that take away from the community upkeep. It is true that some other users have a record pattern of misconduct. Certainly, if their history is bad, don't expect improvement even when Raven is gone, and keep waiting and getting reasonable diff links (e.g. not ones after GC apologizes and the other party accepts the apology). Additionally, Raven's pattern of behavior is more recent and much easier to document and identify.

If anyone else wants to summarize or chip in extra negative or positive experiences of Raven, or if anyone wants to defend him, that's fine. What I will not appreciate is the accusation that I'm a tyrant. It's not a useful accusation. Every long-time mod gets accused of this at one point in their life.

One thing for certain and I will make this clear: if Godless Raven attempts a LANCB in this case, Raven will be considered perma-banned.
 * This is a clear violation of https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki_talk:Community_Standards#Proposal_Removed, which was voted on by the mob. This is null and void. 18:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * LGM is also a mod. It is not null and void. You are in no position to argue that it is. — Oxyaena Harass  18:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, this is not a site to rules-lawyer. If mob opinion wants to go outside the community standards, then it will. That is kind of the point of a mobocracy.-Flandres (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not even the right rule. It's supposed to be applied to general LANCB iirc. This condition is one I set and is limited to just this case. It's supposed to address the confusion with the LANCB in one of the coop cases. 18:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well you are twisting the CS to fit your desired outcome. Here is what it says:

This was rejected by the mob. If you want to change it, you should open another vote on it (assuming you care about mob decisions). 18:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you need to realize who you're arguing with. The mob is the ultimate authority here, and the community standards are explicitly guidelines, not rules. — Oxyaena Harass  18:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have a compromise-let us just not archive the case if he retires in the middle of it and keep counting votes. If he leaves, the the community should still decide whether to shut the door behind him.-Flandres (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That is the correct action. LANCB's are not punishable and it was voted on. This isn't a compromise by any means, it's the status quo. 18:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest treating this section as a suggested punishment + a default judgement in case GR ends up LANCBing. 18:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's my intent. Also, keep focus on Raven's misbehavior, guys. 18:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Well I won't repeat myself, but i'll write it in bold+underline if someone doesn't want to read all the exchanges. LANCB's are not punishable because this was voted against by the mob.  18:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * GR, this is about your conduct. Stop derailing the discussion with rules lawyering when this is a mobocracy. I would like to apologize to the other editors for enabling his little diversion.-Flandres (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

On another note
We should be archiving coop cases by moving the pages, not copy-pasting the content. I found it difficult to sift through diff links for older coop cases.

Magpies are cute
I'm tempted to put Gr in sysoprevoke so they won't make the mistake of unbanning but ek might come in and reinstate sysop
 * Check my paragraph in ATIM. Fully in agreement with all of this, recommending a permablock once voting can begin. 18:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Four chances is enough. GR may make positive contributions but those are outweighed effortlessly by his proclivity towards drama. And gloating about future plans to drive users off of the site is a ethical event horizon.-Flandres (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding abuse of power, you were called out by Hastur on your talk page, when you sysoprevoked and indef blocked me without a coop case nor a justification on the mod page. In this case you clearly breached procedure, and worse, you plotted this ahead in the other discord. I'm not sure what "I will hit a giant giant POW block" means, but I guess it could mean a LANCB (like the other time you did) or some punishments. Either way, you discussed something on discord as a mod action in an opaque way rather than resolving things transparently. I will quote your words:

and I might get resistance on those that insist procedure

I'm off for tonight. If there's a new coop/all things in moderation regarding my indef ban and sysoprevoke for Raven and that thing explodes I will hit a giant giant POW block.

There might be one coming up 18:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Further, LGM today linked this coop case in the other discord (possibly to brigade). Full text:

raven is back in support chat for some reason I thought I banned him anyway I made a new coop case

go crazy. I'm gonna eat breakfast There needs to be a vote if I can remove anyone
 * Is this even allowed? LGM, can you confirm for those who are not on discord that those are your words?  18:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * First of all, you are quote mining.
 * Second: You are spying on people, but that's okay, because we don't talk behind other people's backs. We know you lurk, and we say hi to you.
 * Third: One would think that in a discord group where people are editors they might be interested in what goes on in the wiki. I AM THE ONE WHO ASKED IF WE SHOULD PING PEOPLE TO INFORM THEM THAT THERE IS A COOP ON. You are omitting THAT. And that the Crow was once again a stand up guy, as was LGM. But I guess that doesn't suit your narrative?

Rairyu75 Today at 19:20

Should we ping the wiki editors?

Like, all of em?

@The Crow Wacha think Crow?

The Crow Today at 19:20

uhhh

well, id suggest asking a mod

i wouldn't say no

Rairyu75 Today at 19:20

Yeah, same.

They will see.

The Crow Today at 19:21

but i also dont want this place to basically vote stuff the coop

Rairyu75 Today at 19:21

(we are drama whores.)

The Crow Today at 19:21

i do want a fair process and i know that this guild isnt a huge fan of GR

Rairyu75 Today at 19:21

True.

LeafyGlumMayonaise Today at 19:21

I don't want to brigade a vote - Rairyu75  ( Talk ) 19:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * That was in a channel dedicated to talking about y'know... the wiki? She's just pointing out procedure as far as I can see as well. She also addressed this concern directly after another editor asked if a lot of people could be mentioned for it. She agreed that stuffing the coop was a bad idea, therefore it didn't happen. Keep those accusations of brigading in your pants and stop trying to smear your accuser here and actually fucking acknowledge the situation. 18:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Crow is right. "Go crazy" was referring to any possible opinion or hot take, I didn't think about trying to get a vote here. As for the vote, it refers to the vote being held in Support Chat. 19:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not what it says. You mentioned subsequently the coop case, and the only reason Rairyu is aware of this coop case *is* because you told people to "go crazy". I will let others decide if they are okay with discord brigading. I said my piece about this. 19:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Your actions don't represent that. You voted to ban me in the discord server. You only came back today - and it is hard to imagine it is a coincidence that it's the exact day when LGM started this coop. If you want to actually bury the hatchet, vote against the upcoming ban and undo your ban on the discord. Otherwise you are plainly lying. 19:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's the same logic I used when my sysoprevoke was voted on. The parallels here are stunning. — Oxyaena Harass  18:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Still believe that most of GR’s bad behavior is in response to hostility and unfairness directed at him. Permaban ain’t it, will vote against. 18:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Moose you are completely ingorning multiple completely unprovoked cases of Raven harassing or provoking Oxy or GC on the Saloon and numerous cases of provocative snark all over the wiki that was, entirely, completely unprovoked (I cannot emphasise enough how unprovoked it was). On top of that is a complete inability to own up to his fuck-ups minus a semi-appology for the hitlist (hardly the worst thing he did) and after all this still maintains an "Ill do whatever the fuck I want...don't like it...fuck off" attitude. Do you think Moose that the community just randomly thought "hey there is some new user why don't we all just pick on him for no reason"? Do you not remember the completely unprovoked misbehaviour before his coop which he promised to change after coming back?  Shabi  DOO  19:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not all of them were hostile and he treated them too witthe same hostility. 19:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please name them and the situations. 19:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's... written at length. 19:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So you can't name them? The ones you listed already hate me and do everything to kick me off. Mention the ones that were never hostile to me and that I reacted to them negatively. Otherwise it's just a claim without any backing. 19:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Seemed to me to be Ratcord drama that started people not liking Raven. He and I started off on a super bad footing but have since patched things up, so I’ve never gotten why that couldn’t happen with others. 19:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I`m willing to bury the hatchet with Raven, but he has to do the legwork too. It takes two to tango after all. — Oxyaena Harass  19:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep. Duce and RWRW were poisoned against me from the beginning, but I apologized and made up for it. If people approach me with humanity, I'll happily give back. Oxy and GC from day one wanted to eliminate me; has evidence of a hitlist that GC and Oxy made (I know LGM and others won't care when those two make hitlists). Those who wanted to cooperate with me have not experienced any pain and I did so because I care about the wiki. This isn't borne out of disagreement either: Dysk is an anarchist and RWRW is a libertarian. I can be civil if people treat me fairly, which Oxy, GC, Flandres, Shabidoo, Crow and LGM never cared about.  19:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Edit: Oxy did change her vote. Thank you Oxy. I will try my best to coexist with you from now on. 19:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * GR: Do you understand what's causing that behavior? They're not feuding against you. You're again assuming bad faith in them. I already told you the ones that aren't hostile but you insist they are because you assume malicious intent in them.
 * Duce, I could bring up the Ratcord drama, but that's a sideshow. I was tempted myself to bring up those mostly on Ratcord as part of the list of names that are tired of him, but we all know Ratcord affairs are only tangentially related to wiki behavior and can't be relied on to make a case here. Most of the coop, however, was written with just wiki behavior in mind, and many of the editors involved aren't on Ratcord nor are they as active. I wrote at length in Archive104 (which is also just wiki conduct) where Raven got unjustly attacked by Oxyaena, GC wanted to cooperate, I wanted to give benefit of doubt. 19:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Except Oxyaena, those arguing about Raven's actions weren't even active on RatCord during the drama that involved him on RatCord (I asked) and the majority seemingly weren't on RatCord at the time. Characterizing the entire case against him as "RatCord drama" is a blatant inaccuracy and sweeps his on-wiki actions under the rug. Please try not to get caught up in mostly unrelated narratives. 19:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, you're doing exactly what I'm accusing you of doing, Raven, in the coop. You're pointing fingers at everyone. 19:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

- 1) Despite official and formal policy, did you indef block me without a coop case nor mentioning it in the mod noticeboard? - 2) Did you talk about using your mod actions as a wiki mod on the discord server? - 3) Did you at any moment condemn or sanction GC's behavior when he told multiple people in the saloon bar to kill themselves?
 * I dunno. I’m just still swayed by my personal experiences with Raven into believing that he’s fine if given the chance. Plus, it seems like most of the examples of bad behavior were from his meltdown the other day, for which I personally blocked him and which he seemed to realize was out of line. 19:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think Raven's a bad person, Duce. He definitely has quality traits such as productive discussion in RationalWiki Support Chat and through shared stories on DMs (as with me) and he's helpful. But it's his extremely difficult character flaws combined with the positives that make it especially frustrating. I was convinced to give him benefit of the doubt and give him a few chances. He played out several months. Again, Duce, because of the positive interactions, I'm not happy making him upset at me nor am I happy about writing this. I don't want to make enemies, but if Raven continues seeing me as an unfair traitor, an abusvie tyrant, or an enemy because I want to fairly evaluate and write a long post heavily criticizing his conduct and calling into question his upkeep for the wiki, that's his problem. 19:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem I see here is GR can't seem to do conflict resolution without edit-warring, throwing a hissy fit involving a Gish Gallop style defense of personal insults and tired deflections, and eventually involving the coup. In a period of only two months, we have: four f'n coup incidents. Plus the usual "LANCB" with a quick return. This is spectacularly immature and childish behavior. Everyone has their bad days but this is egregious. Raven's probably fine if given the chance, but from what I see, unless Raven learns to work through disputes, we're going to have to decide whether it is more worthwhile to maintain a wiki, or spending most of our time managing a child throwing a fit in the coup again. Soundwave106 (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * * please answer the following questions with yes or no:

20:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Man, GR sure does like deflecting conversations away from his own issues! That much has not changed.-Flandres (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)



Please go to and see for yourself. Me and hastur disagreed. We hashed it out on the talk page. No editwarring. No insults or "hissy fit". In fact, it was Hastur (and several other people) who asked me to come back (I myself wouldn't if multiple people didn't defend me). I came back because they defended me and valued my hard work. I am willing to hash out things, you are ignoring the vast amount of times where I went to the talk page to discuss things. Do you want an explicit list of when that happened, if you don't believe me? 20:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC) I am bringing up your mod abuses. Promoting is explicitly outlined in the CS (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Community_Standards#Demoting_and_promoting_users).
 * This is your trial, not mine GR. I've written an entire section on you trying to equate the actions of multitudes of users to yours. I predicted in your defense that you'll attempt to bring up apparent abuse of powers not to strengthen your case but weaken mine. This is about you. Anyway, you've asked for an indef block which isn't outlined in policy nor does it say in policy I will have to bring up a coop case for a request to block. On Discord I notify users of my actions. I told GC probably in DM that he should tone down the attitude. This has been stated in the coop. Now, let's hear your defense on your behavior, not your attacks on me and others. 20:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

So is your answer to the question:

"Despite official and formal policy, did you indef block me without a coop case nor mentioning it in the mod noticeboard? a ? So you admit that you coordinate your mod action on discord ("Did you talk about using your mod actions as a wiki mod on the discord server?") without going through the proper channels? And you admit that you did not condemn or sanctions GC's "kill yourself" comment on the wiki when it occured ON the wiki ("Did you at any moment condemn or sanction GC's behavior when he told multiple people in the saloon bar to kill themselves?")?  20:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * GR, you are deflecting. Again.-Flandres (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier, you can and will attempt to bring up anything that resembles the slightest bit of misconduct or inability to attend to a conflict that has been since resolved to elevate you as a victim of unjust judgement. You're doing this to me as you've done to others, outlined in coop with the diff links. 20:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is abuse. You abused your power. I want you to confirm that so that everyone can see that. 20:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, saying "define yourself on my terms or I will say I was right anyway." This is why people think engagement with you, while ideally desirable, is not worth it in practice. Oh, and you are deflecting again.-Flandres (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sidenote GR, you make mention of Oxy and GC making a "hitlist". May I see evidence of that, because I think to at least many in this coop, this would be quite a shocking development, since I have never heard of anyone making a hitlist that isn't the one from your specific meltdown the other day. 11:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Testimony on what happened on Ratcord
It was back in November of 2018 when Raven joined Ratcord. Raven posted an essay where he defended people screwing corpses. A lot of people (myself included) got angry with Raven. When we started to object to his views Raven started to project that we were far-left, even though a lot of us weren't even far-left. Adam Warlock (talk) 05:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * see? People want me banned because of 2018 discord drama (+ another piece of evidence that LGM is brigading). 09:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not what they're saying. I suggest you reread it again. The testimony, whilst nice doesn't even remotely connect to the current situation. LGM wasn't active back then. Neither was GC. Many of the complainers weren't even in that Discord. The only person involved on that Discord back then who has raised complaints (again I asked this to make sure) against you was Oxy (who got banned from there) and guess what, she's not filing shit against you. So I would suggest you stop pushing this dishonest bullshit.
 * Nobody is cooping you because you have some weird ideas on what to do with the dead. I can pretty safely say that most of us don't even give a remote two shits about your opinion on necrophilia, since you haven't touched any aricles related to that subject here. You are here because you are incapable of working together with other editors, unable to accept criticism and constantly deflect any attempts at delivering criticism by trying to smear the person delivering it rather than taking it to heart. 11:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Small amendement; Apparently Oxy wasn't even active during that incident either, so the entire notion that this is 2018 Discord drama being done on the wiki is frankly pathetic. 11:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please retract the "Nobody is cooping you because you have some weird ideas on what to do with the dead." I multiple times said that I don't care about it. It's a moral principle, not a personal preference of mine. 11:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant minutiae that carries no bearing on my point. Confront the argument. 11:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I only posted this Raven because it shows a history of how you can get. You can get very toxic and belligerent when somebody criticizes you and your views. Adam Warlock (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a stupid section and should not be considered. 18:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah. But LGM asked for this "testimony" (part of her brigading). 19:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What the person did was ask (I did not initiate asking) to provide a small bit of background of Raven's uncooperative behavior stemming from 2018. It's relevant because the behavior here is similar to the conflict this person experienced, and it's supposed to suggest Raven's problems are long term and cannot be resolved with a short-term block (from my interpretation). This section isn't essential; even without it, a month's worth of drama is already sufficient, but this going back years doesn't help Raven's reputation. 19:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * News: Raven escapes an attempted ban from Support Chat by a vote of 9 vs 10. 02:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Funnily enough
Even Oxy is willing to cooperate me (she was the reason why I LANCB'ed in the first place). I would argue this significantly weakens the case for this coop. For what it is worth, I pledge to not interact with Oxy and I hope we (me and her) can coexist on this platform. I'm thankful for her initiative to use diplomacy rather than a war hammer and I apologize for my hostility to her recently. 19:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Raven, I am saying this because I think the worst outcome is you being expelled from the site. The best outcome is to drop this belligerent attitude, apologise to those you were viciously uncivil to during your 24 hour meltdown and say you'll make an effort to coexist with established users. I promise you that every time you make any other sort of comment here on this coop will count against you and increase the likelihood of you being voted against. Shabi  DOO  19:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I apologized to Oxy, who extended her hand for diplomacy. You have yet to apologize for your hostility; I said I would apologize if you did so as well (and you refused). 19:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sigh Shabi  DOO  20:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Raven, since you're in the hot seat here, it might be prudent to extend the olive branch first. 20:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I did! I said I would apologize for the hitlist if Shabidoo apologized for being an ass to me. She doesn't want to apologize and I am not going to kneel. That won't happen. Either she accepts that this conflict is caused by multiple people and not scapegoat me; or nada. 20:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I wrote in the coop that Raven made it clear that his apology is only conditional and assumes Shabidoo conducted as bad as Raven. Shabidoo is not entitled to apologize, you are for saying a load of hurtful things like calling Shabi a useless, toxic influence. The diff links are there. But the amount of effort you tried to make this condition clear will weaken any further attempt at apology. Making a brief apology now isn't going to make up for this. 20:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Then I won't apologize. You won't scapegoat and demonize me with my consent. 20:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Raven, this isn't helping your case. It would benefit you to demonstrate a willingness to work with Shabidoo on your own end without conditions. The demand for conditions in exchange for a simple apology does make you seem unreasonable. 20:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It needs two for cooperation to happen. I already proposed an interaction ban between me and Shabidoo. She refused. I proposed to apologize. She refused. She doesn't want to cooperate. She wants me to kneel. And I won't kneel. If that means I get banned, so it will be. I hope that user retention problem will then be solved when I'm off this site. 20:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) This is not an unusual retort Raven makes. This fits exactly with all the evidence I've been gathering. 20:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Allow me to say treating Oxy as being equally belligerent is at least understandable, given her reaction to him first making his account, but to say shabidoo and crow are in the same behavioral box as that is ridiculous.-Flandres (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've never personally seen Shabi behave offensively. She's usually quite pleasant. 20:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No she doesn't. She is pleasant. Yet Raven is treating her to the same standard as this horrible insult or this one he's thrown at her. He's practically asking her to apologize for making him mad like that. 20:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "No, I'm not going to be your monkey" - Jon Stewart, when asked by Tucker Carlson to be "funny". I will not apologize to Shabidoo if she doesn't ever recognize her own nasty behavior. I will be banned first before that happens. 20:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you link to some of this nasty behavior? Because I genuinely don't remember her doing anything really bad. 20:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Duce, do you see why some of us think reasoning with GR, while ideal in theory, is unworkable in practice? And again, let me insist that "shabidoo is a toxic user who contributes nothing to the site" is simply a false claim.-Flandres (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way I am LGTBQ+ but I identify as a Cis male. Shabi  DOO  20:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought you identified as female. My bad, I'll try not to misgender you again. 20:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Then I apologize for misgendering, because I was told to use "she". I usually dont gender and use "they" whenever I am not told what pronounts to use. Anyway.

Here: In all cases I didn't provoke her, but she attacked and/or provoked me. Please don't fall for lies. 21:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Is that equally as hostile as what Lefty has linked? I say this because having you both apologize implies you are both equally in the wrong and have said equally toxic things to each other.-Flandres (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So imma be honest... none of those comments seem really bad. The worst thing she says is that you were behaving childishly with the template, which I'm not terribly inclined to disagree with. 21:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

My god... Shabidoo came unprovoked to attack me. If that isn't nasty, surely I have nothing to apologize for. 21:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * All of those comments that you've linked simply reflect on your disruptive behaviour and my attempts to constructively encourage you to be more cooperative with users. They were entirely provoked because you were being disruptive of unconstructive. Shabi  DOO  21:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There were zero insults and not even swear words. Shabi just criticized your actions and behavior. There's nothing there. 21:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * rolls eyes* yep, threatening to get me banned multiple times is not toxic. Got me. 21:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "I have no doubt the community will swiftly hold a coop to make it an actual ban" is not a threat, but a simple prediction of how the community might react to your actions. If anything, it's a beneficial warning. And if that's toxic then so was your "hit list". 21:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Which I already apologized for and admitted it to be. 21:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, that's good. I still don't see where Shabi threatened you or acted out of line. 21:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out you apologized to the community, put that phrase in bold, and explicitly did not apologize to the users you threatened so imo that was pretty backhanded. But that is beside the point, that Shabidoo still has no reason to apologize and be treated as if he is equally at fault.-Flandres (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will say this and then you guys can misconstrue what I say all you want. I won't be your monkey. I won't apologize if he doesn't either. I linked the evidence. Don't like the evidence? Too bad. If you think he is totally innocent and I am Mephistopheles, then all good. 21:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I evaluated the evidence fairly. What am I misconstruing? 23:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Raven, I am a Cis male, please use the pronoun "he". Shabi DOO  21:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Corrected. 22:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Why are we banning editors based on Discord affairs?
Quick question, is there anything here that isn't just the following statement in a great many words;

Raven is annoying to talk to on Discord, ban him so we don't have to see him anymore"

In a sense I'm asking, do you mind showing evidence of Community Standards violations? This case cites no evidence, previous cases cited no evidence. The only potential violation of the CS I can see is brief edit warring where multiple other editors were in violation as well.

If the case is based on the edit warring then obviously we have several editors to ban. If this case is based on user comments, we have a large part of the wiki to ban. In edit warring and in provocative commentary, the user in question is far from the worst offender. While you are at liberty to conduct a kangaroo court here, I personally think it important to maintain consistent standards, which are applied fairly and equally. The current situation is quite demonstrably an exercise in abusing our on-wiki processes to further an irrelevant disagreement on Discord. 00:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * LGM also wants to ban me in case I LANCB again, which is very clearly against CS (worse, it was recently voted on by the mob). See: RationalWiki:Chicken_coop 00:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The convoluted excuses concocted to ban people based on Discord affairs, without citing any actionable violations of the community standards have been noted. In a nutshell none of the behaviour listed in this case, previous cases, or the mod noticeboard have risen above baseline misconduct exhibited by most of the active users of this wiki. The clear singling out, of one of the better behaved and more productive editors, is little more than thinly veiled personal spite. If you need proof of this take a look at the Discord channels, it's very plain. 00:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't to mention the brigading (which she admitted to) on the discord server for this coop ("go crazy"). 00:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I would go as far as saying the outcome of this case was predetermined in private channels on Discord where it was extensively discussed and planned in advance by Crow, LGM, and others who will show up in the vote I'm sure. That said, whether there is any real interest in preventing Discord users from dictating the moderation of this wiki, is an unresolved matter. 00:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You got completely the wrong information and Raven, to put it mildly, does not not know what he's talking about. Neither do you. 00:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @D. I have no interest in banning anyone. I do think that the rules for dealing with small potatoes disruptions is backwards. Perhaps we should have special rules for our sysops. Something to the effect that if moderators think you are being disruptive, according to the claims of other sysops, then a short time-out may be imposed. Rather than go to the coop first to authorize a short block, or editor's holiday, the blocked editor must either accept the short block (1-48 hours, maybe) or appeal to the coop to overturn it. After that, any new block must depend on offences subsequent to the end of the old block. Let me add, I have never been on Discord and I have no beef with GR.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Are people being banned because of Discord drama? AceModerator 03:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's mostly wiki behavior involving a lot of wiki users that have no account on Discord servers. 03:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I virtually never use discord and have never coincided with the user in question. Shabi  DOO  04:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why anyone thinks Raven is being banned for Discord drama. The details of the coop case are written out in great detail by LGM, where she demonstrates misbehavior from Raven on the wiki itself. I oppose banning Raven and even I see that. 04:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I frankly lack the time to read all this drama. But a scan of the page turns up 37 references to "discord" and only 6 for "community standards".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest closing this coop then? Seems like weak sauce anyhow. 17:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * - That's because the accused keeps dragging this into being about "Discord" and not about "community standards" when it's not about "Discord". To be clear, this entire coop so far has been presenting a complaint, and the counterevidence from GR being a mixture of smears or not addressing the complaint at all. Discord comes more often up because that's his specific technique of not addressing the complaint, which has zero to do with drama on discord. Try to not get caught up in word count here. 18:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * RationalWiki:Chicken_coop 18:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Once again, evidence does not connect. That testimony was from an unrelated user, not in the original complaint and it is pointed out (by yours truly) that the accusations cannot even feasibly connect to the complaint made by LGM since the people having issue with you on the Wiki weren't participants in that particular discussion (and the majority of the people as a whole who have issue with you on the wiki aren't even active or on that Discord either to begin with). This is not Discord drama. Stop pretending it is, the argument is so bad at this point that it becomes Not even wrong. 18:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No Raven stop trying to avoid responsibility. There are more than enough members here who have expressed serious concern. We will have a vote to see if the community agrees with banning you and if not blocking you for a few days to at least send a message. Voting begins tomorrow. As  for Bob the discord part is only a minor portion of the problems despite how often it comes up. lGM has stated a strong case which you admitted you didn't read. It is a strong statement  regardless of anything said about discord.  Shabi  DOO  18:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring on his own coop case
GR please don't collapse content on your own coop case, you must realise that it reflects terribly on you. Also do not edit war with a user on a coop or policy case. For the same reason. I and other users consider that content no where near as relevant but still representative of the problem. Leave it where it is and don't collapse it again. Shabi DOO  21:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't collapse anything. I uncollapsed it. Jesus, look at the fossil record. 21:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Plus, this is not editwarring. The 3RR wasn't violated. Plus, it was LGM and Crow who are trying to cover up stuff. Will you apologize now for your mistake?   21:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What are they trying to cover up? They were just dismissing that as not being especially relevant, at least not as much as all of the evidence they gathered. Indeed, that is actually a conciliatory move to their critics, who would rather nothing relating to discord come up at all.-Flandres (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm tired of this assumption of bad faith. Flandres understands a lot better what I'm trying to do, trying to do a conciliatory move, exactly that. 21:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

LGM and Crow should know better than to collapse comments on a case they are heavily involved in. It makes it look a lot like they want to direct the narrative of their case. Ignoring that. It's irrelevant and nobody cares. I'm going to undo it because I can. 22:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Does it really? After you can read numerous posts saying several users would rather have discord come up as little as possible?-Flandres (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is relevant because of the brigading. Which happened. In this coop. And the proof is right there. 22:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, your "proof" has been ripped to shreds. Please stop derailing the conversation with false allegations and blatant sophistry.-Flandres (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The user in question asked LGM if he could post that section in advance on Discord, LGM said yes. In short she collapsed comments she sanctioned after realising it wasn't helping. 22:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That would still not be the shadowy conspiracy you make it out to be. One user thought his background knowledge of GR might be useful. Once posted, much of the rest of the community decided it was not. Judged irrelevant, it was collapsed accordingly.-Flandres (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't perform mod actions when you are personally involved in the case. Don't collapse comments on mod pages unless absolutely required. It ain't rocket science. Now shut the fuck up, and focus on something else. 22:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please ignore Flandres. He is a troll and shitflinger. He provokes us in order to make us upset so that he can point fingers at our reactions. That's basically their side's modus operandi. 22:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You assume the worst from me! I can't explain anything about my actions. Anything I do is considered "silencing" or "abuse to power". Flandres understands me and that's giving me hope because I'm going completely insane from all these insistent bad-faith accusations leveraged to me by Raven and Dysk. I tried to explain, it's supposed to tuck away conversation as not relevant and not evidence for my issue with Raven. But Raven and you are conjuring up the worst assumptions about me and while I explain you keep insisting and insisting your assumptions about me are more accurate than my own explanations and pick apart and blow up the smallest contradiction in logic as me lying. I resent this. And now hastur and Revolverman are ready to not believe me either and are completely misunderstanding this issue. Dysk, why are you listening to this guy who's trying to smear one of our community members? 01:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not, personally, assuming bad faith. Rather, I think that you see that Raven is at odds with users like GC, who you prefer, and you've elected to blame Raven for everything.  You're playing favorites, basically.  Also you seem bizarrely beholden to the opinions on Ratcord; I don't understand why you're so thirsty for their approval.  Does Godless Raven sometimes have unhealthy reactions to the hostility he is presented with?  Yes, of course.  I do try to be reasonable and I've told Raven personally that some of what he does isn't good for him or for the wiki.  But he is a good person and a good editor, and what evidence you've presented against him is not compelling enough to ban him, at least according to how we've always done things on this site.  You may not think precedent matters, but I believe it is important that we apply the rules evenly.-Hastur! (talk)  02:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hastur, I try to get opinions from others to possibly get any sort of quick amends, disagreements, etc. I was in that same spot as you, the exact same spot to give him advice and help him stay out of trouble. I still think he's a good person and a good editor but he's not a good team player. His reactions are very unhealthy. As for GC, I indef banned GC and he asked me through Discord, and I refused because I don't think it's good to possibly escalate this coop. Raven is trying to deflect to others and the conversation has been shifted to my defense. I don't think Raven's conduct is so easily dismissed as "just insults", especially since it's spread across several users and got tangled in several coop cases and proposals for topic bans. 02:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If he's such a bad team player, why does he get along with Dysk and I? Because we approached him in good faith.  Despite our differences (and believe me, there are differences), we have been able  communicate effectively and work towards a common goal.  That's all we need to do.  Unfortunately, when Raven first arrived he was faced with a great deal of animosity.  So of course he responded in kind.  It's only human.  Let this blow over and the next time there's a mainspace content dispute involving him I will personally mediate-Hastur! (talk)  02:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * But there's a bigger list of people he can't cooperate as well as many content disputes that blew completely out of proportion. I approached him in good faith, don't assume I didn't. I thought Oxy initially went too far in trying to oppose Raven. I tried to stop conflicts with Oxy and Raven before. I DMd him and had better conversations. I gave him advice on how he can improve on the wiki and how to improve the community. I had the idea maybe he could work in the wiki too and I gave him benefit of the doubt until he kept being really really nasty to all his perceived enemies. 02:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't see how Oxy instigating this infected discourse around Raven in the first place? Because that bigger list of people you're talking about tend to rally around Oxyaena.  Raven has demonstrated that he is willing to engage in constructive discussions to improve the site, which is why I think we should keep him.  You have demonstrated that when attacked he gets defensive and upset, and it seems silly to ban him for that-Hastur! (talk)  02:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to question whether we should be collapsing comments at all. It ALWAYS leads to edit warring and escalates whatever is happening.  We should know better than to try and pettily shut down discussions.  If you don't want to read it you don't have to collapse it.  Just skip on past to the next section or move to a different page.-Hastur! (talk)  00:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hastur, please stop trying to portray Raven as some victim of some animosity campaign on the wiki. His unprovoked behaviour during his first weeks in the wiki was obnoxious enough for the community to nearly ban him and enough to vote to block him. A casual view of the coop case made (his first coop) and the evidence presented will show disruptive behaviour, much of it completely utterly unprovoked. I can only assume you never read it and were not here to witness it. Much of the hostility towards him was WELL DESERVED. Just take a simple read through this entire coop case and you'll see tons of Raven's inability to work through the problems and several times wilfully make things worse. And even if your case is true (which it totally isn't) a dozen other users would have found a way to work through that hostility without alienating people, provoking others, resisting endless attempts to get over disagreements and work it out. The "victim of hostility" argument is a white-washing of a problem user. Shabi  DOO  02:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Bigtime this. Its incredible insulting and provocative on anything but the most obvious drive by trolling. Revolverman (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

All right, I collapsed this. Raven and Dysk are correct that this is a tangential subject that shouldn't be there, being purely Discord drama and not relevant to wiki activity. i.e. it's off-topic. I want the this conversation to be here purely archived, but to not be considered when discussing Raven's behavior. 02:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Is this fucking thing still going...
...Jesus fucking christ. It's now drifting so far beyond a Coop Case that it should be summarily archived and forgotten about. AceModerator 21:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. 21:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Vote’s coming up pretty soon, so this is almost over. 21:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, that's what you get when the 48 hours deadline is insisted on for voting. Things tend to take a while.-Flandres (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think Ace is referring to how idiotic this whole situation is rather than the time interval. 21:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, all the deflecting tangents about the conduct of other users, the misrepresentation of the opposing arguments, false allegations of discord plotting, and insisting shabidoo is a toxic user in hindsight did not help the quality of the discussion.-Flandres (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course, there is still the issue no evidence of Raven's alleged misconduct has been presented. I can't find any misconduct, merely a bunch of morons bickering. To me it's obviously a witchhunt. 22:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you read the giant post Lefty opened this with?-Flandres (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The one with no evidence. Yeah, I did. 22:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you had undone the collapse (as it seemed when I reviewed the pages) then I apologise Raven and take it back. This might be a shining example of how easy it is to concede a point and admit that someone screwed up (me in this case obviously). Ace, we will see tomorrow how much the community agrees with your dismissal of these problems or not. Shabi  DOO  23:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You're in complete denial, Dysk. "it's not evidence" "he started it" "he did it too". 01:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If calling people "hacks" is considered a violation of the community standards then we'd better start a few dozen more ban votes-Hastur! (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You're completely misunderstanding this problem. I didn't put out one or two insults. It's a recurring overall pattern of behavior that all adds up. Come on! 01:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Man, and I thought Theory of Practice and I got into it. You think this guy was Dirk, or something.... Revolverman (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This Coop comprises nearly ten thousand words of text. Who has time for this?

https://youtu.be/xpAvcGcEc0k?t=48 Ariel31459 (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ariel, don't you think the fact that a user who has only been around for a few weeks, has generated two coops, one of which is 10,000 words of text, indicates that there is a serious problem? Shabi  DOO  03:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * He's been here for a few months, been through three coops. He went through two accounts. GR and GR~2020. 04:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @Shabi: Now I am not criticizing you all for being frustrated with this guy. I just think you are going about this backwards. The guy's causing problems. Make a resolution, if they keep it up, such and such will happen. Either anyone can do it or give the job to LGM if he wants it. Why all this drama? Mobs can be vicious. Now is a good time to start.Ariel31459 (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There was a resolution a month ago, from Archive140. He was told to keep low, handle conflict better, stay out of trouble, be nicer, etc. We're back here. 04:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * He was given probation last time with the idea that if he misbehaved he would be blocked or worse. He was then blocked...no change. He was then expelled by an admin and somebody undid it. What you call drama is people trying to find a solution. Probation didn't work. I asked if blocks were feasible on the "allthingsinmoderation" page and nobody responded. We will see tomorrow how the rest of the community feels. Shabi  DOO  04:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Dysk did it if I am not mistaken. It appears they have a vito. They seem reasonable enough. Ask Dysk to solve the problem. Make it their problem.Ariel31459 (talk) 05:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I have some questions, Raven
Please understand, I just want to try to see your point of view in these conflicts. I'd like if you explain to me your thought processes that led to these posts. Do you believe they are justified?


 * https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User:GR&diff=prev&oldid=2217044

Why did you make this hit list? Do you regret it? Why? Did you consider why these five users are not acting friendly to you?


 * https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki_talk:All_things_in_moderation&diff=prev&oldid=2217419

Why is your apology vague? Why do you keep making your apologizes conditional?


 * https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:Chicken_coop&diff=prev&oldid=2217895

Give me evidence of a hitlist. If it's on Discord, then will you show me that it's not Discord drama; i.e. it's relevant to the wiki? Why do you think they are hostile to you? By asking you this, do you think I don't care about the hitlist?


 * https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki_talk:All_things_in_moderation&diff=prev&oldid=2217083

Why did you post this? Do you believe it is justified? Do you believe there are other ways of communicating your discontent with Flandres?


 * https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:Chicken_coop&diff=prev&oldid=2218419

as stated in support chat: You've been removing my collapse that tried to discount and shelve away Discord drama. Do you then count Discord drama as a valid component of this coop? I will open the discussion around Discord interactions if you believe the collapse shouldn't have happened.

I will listen. I want to understand better. 03:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

A Proposal(not to be voted on just yet)
Since most of this drama seems to stem from the edits GR makes to Leftism-related articles, perhaps we should topic ban him from said articles. There is no other component to the proposal, no sysoprevoke, no interaction ban, nothing related to discord, no forced apologies/retractions, not even a saloon topic ban(so he could still start a thread or comment in one relating to this). By attacking this at the source we do more to end the conflict whilst still satisfying those who like his other contributions and want to keep him around. And before anyone says I am suppressing critique of far-left politics or something absurd like that, a cursory examination of the talk pages of several articles disputed before he arrived shows he is not in any sense the only user who disagrees with radical leftism and even though other users end up confronting the same people as GR (GC and Oxy of course spring to mind, but there are others) they cause WAY less drama in the process. Did we coop Bongolian for his disagreements on the matter of Tara Reade, as litigated on the Joe Biden page? Or what about Duce and Comrade Yutyo(if anyone still remembers that)? We do not actually lose anything other than giving a few users a chance to re-litigate old personal disputes with this solution.-Flandres (talk) 05:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The Tara Reade example is completely off the wall. 1) I did not act in an uncivil or belligerent manner in any way regarding that dispute. 2) I prevailed in that dispute. Bongolian (talk) 07:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That is what I meant. You handled the disagreement well. All of this is not the inevitable and necessary result of having an edit conflict over articles over fairly similar root causes(left wing slant in main space that might just go a bit too far). Thus, there are people who believe our articles can lean too far to the left, say that, and ultimate carry the day whilst still behaving in a constructive manner.-Flandres (talk) 09:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. Late night misreading on my part, I guess. Bongolian (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Since Flanders won't present an example where I cooperated despite divergence of opinion/approach, go check the Karl Marx article. Me and resolved our differences amicably. Here are some diffs:
 * 
 * talk page:
 * All you need to do for me to be polite to you is not be an obnoxious troll, start attacking me (e.g. "Can we talk about goddless raven being a lying piece of shit?" ) and just treat me fairly. The people who want me banned never cared about that and will probably never be inclined to do so. 10:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There are also several people who get along with me just fine: Dysk, Ze, Hastur, Duce (who initially I clashed with), RWRW (who initially I clashed with), CoryUsar ... 10:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not saying you have never solved a dispute in a civil manner. I am saying you tend to escalate much more often than de-escalate, especially with a specific group of users you tend to assume bad faith in(shabidoo and crow for instance). The way you handled Karl Marx dispute is the exception, not the rule. And I am trying to provide a alternative to banning that still brings peace to the community so saying I am out to permaban you is not really true here.-Flandres (talk) 10:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have around 3000 edits. Did you check all of them to make that claim? 10:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, your conflicts on most of these pages have already been mentioned extensively by others and are well known to the community at large. Also, I am not talking about your contributions as a whole, merely those parts that would be subject to this topic ban.-Flandres (talk) 10:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * How about your lot stopping to generate drama and conflict? Oxy already made peace with me and I pledge to not revert her stuff; if I see an issue, I will send an intermediary. So how about you, LGM, Crow, Shabidoo, etc. do the same? Just avoid me and do your thing? 10:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * But I am not trying to generate drama(also even one of your own allies disagree with what you said about shabidoo). Again, you escalate by making baseless accusations of bad faith when others are making simple suggestions or pointing out flaws in your conduct. If this topic ban were followed I would have no need to interact with you, because nothing else you do is especially bad. Thus it brings peace to the site. What is wrong with the topic ban?-Flandres (talk) 11:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it implies (without evidence) that my edits on this subject are by default bad, when, in fact, the problem is the concerning individuals wanting to obstruct me. Hastur cooperated with me to work on the Karl Marx article. He approached me in good faith and like a person rather than an enemy. An interaction *will* work better because it is a certain group of people - a vocal minority - who persecute me, not the other way around. 11:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I know I've only been here a month, but from my short time knowing him, I haven't had any issues with GR. I believe in just getting our heads down, working together and fulfilling our goals. Civility and a fair-handed approach to things is all we need.Fowler (talk) 11:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Answer my questions, GR. 18:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Le Vote
Votes may be cast below after 18:00 UTC 26 August 2020 (48 hours after case opening) and voting will end 96 hours (4 days) later.

The ban vote
This is the vote on the proposal to permanently ban GR from RationalWiki. The question is; permanently ban GR (Aye); or, don't ban GR (Nay).

Aye

 * 1) After this recent display of sysop abuse, no way I'm not voting Aye.  18:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Considering GR's behaviour alone on this coop case this is an emminently sensible thing to do.  Shabi  DOO  18:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) I'll advise GR that if he keeps up this childish drama, my vote will not change. If he calms down, my vote might. Soundwave106 (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) they have been nothing but a toxic influence AMassiveGay (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) GR's behavior has been dragged out for well over a month. I've written huge chunks of my interaction with him and he was let off with probation the first time. I don't think granting him another chance (even with a difficult-to-enforce topic ban) is going to change things. 19:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) This evildoer is worse than UT. UT never tried to ban people. 01:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) I don't take the proposed kickbanning of a member lightly. Nevertheless, in this case I say yes. Enough with the drama and uncivil, childish behavior. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 01:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 8) Flandres (talk) 03:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 9) More trouble than he's worth. Spud (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought you said you would give me "one more chance"?   09:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The coop was your last chance. Perhaps Spud should do a coop about your behavior within this coop? 09:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, answer my questions, please. 09:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Like I said, when I wrote that, I didn't know a Coop case against you had already started. So, yes, I think you've had your last chance. Spud (talk) 09:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am asking you to reconsider, . Did you read the coop page? LGM has duplicated sections for her own gain, collapsed comments that she brigaded for in her discord server; you can do a simple Ctrl+F "answer my question" where LGM consistently hammers me with answering bad faith questions. By this vote you are implying I am the sole problem of all of this, discounting all the hounding I get. It's up to you of course, but I thought you were reasonable and responsive to counter arguments. 09:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Do not misrepresent my intents and judgements, Raven. Those questions are designed for you to describe your thought processes behind your judgement decisions. They are designed to help people understand why you act a certain way and can help you self-reflect on why people, including Spud, treat you a certain way. 09:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Never should've been allowed to join in the first place.Adam Warlock (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) I would have preferred a medium-term block, like 1-3 months, but that is not on the table. The topic ban is likely unworkable due to its complexity and the that GR would probably not cooperate (based on his vote). No punishment at all means that there will likely be another coop case regarding GR. Bongolian (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Why is that not on the table? Since when do we go straight for the nuclear option?  This is not RationalWiki.-Hastur! (talk)  18:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Eh, Hastur. Let them have their win. I'm already deleting my stuff and I will ask Dysk to permanently delete some stuff for me. 18:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) The reason that such option wasn't proposed is probably because it was tried with GR in a previous coop case and it turned into a mess. 2) GR can't actually delete anything other than what is on his home page. There is no need for GR to contact Dysk about this. Bongolian (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what I meant. I want to delete my userspace stuff permanently. 18:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Your userspace talk pages should remain (archiving is fine). Bongolian (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) I originally didn't want to vote because I wasn't heavily following the drama that led up to this but I think the attempts to derail the subject on All things in moderation was enough, as bongolian said sadly a temp block isn't on the table. Vorarchivist (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) This is too much for me to just sit by on the discord and watch in horror at Ravens continued atrocious behaviour (and seeming ability to get others to abuse power to defend him/avoid consequences, along with his own abuses of power and general behaviour and repeated patterns of misdirection) - the specifics have been articulated by many already so i won't go into them nya - i've been avoiding edits at least in part because of his own behaviour (tho tbf i don't edit that much). nyaa ⏣sapient_cogbag⏣ [all-lowercase name pls]  talk  02:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Recent bad behavior has made me reconsider. Specifically the decision to join the Support Server to antagonize LGM while admitting that he likes starting drama. I no longer believe that Raven is the kind of personality worth keeping around. A shame, but a conclusion I can no longer avoid. This decision was some time in coming. 01:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Originally voted not to ban, but now changing my vote to support banning. Raven supposedly left the wiki and set up a new one, but he came back today in a trolling spree that has derailed 2 votes on different pages (mod noticeboard and community standards) and caused a Mod to resign. Enough is enough for me. --RWRW (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) Raven hasn't done anything worthy of a ban.  18:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm against perma-banning in general, should be reserved for extreme cases.  Rather, incrementally increasing regular bans, or promotion, or whatever. CoryUsar (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's Archive104 (a lengthy, tiring coop like this one, on Raven). Basically, Raven was let with a temporary ban with a probation. He served this ban and stayed out for a week or so. He was promised to keep a low profile and quietly edit pages. Here we are right now. Throughout his history, he had been through three coops. He was given over a month to improve. Anyhow, this is why some of us advocate such a strong position. 19:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * LGM, please show us where you're getting that he was on probation. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 23:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see that as among the options people were voting on. What am I missing? Nutty Roux (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The implications are there. Sysoprevoke was in favor. People clearly directly expressed obvious explicit expectations for Raven to improve and stay out of drama. This coop was made because those expectations were spectacularly failed. 23:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, your claims that he was on probation are based on what you believe are the implications of a prior coop in which that was not actually voted on. Am I understanding you correctly? Nutty Roux (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Between exactly where the votes were held gets kind of confusing between coop and all things in moderation. However, there was clear expectations for improvement on this behavior. It's commonly agreed that his behavior is unreasonable and that next time Raven messes up, it's a coop case. 23:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm with Nutty here, and not just because he is my lover. AceModerator 00:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) No evidence presented that Raven did fuck all wrong since the last coop, appears to be a rehash of rookie mistakes that ended and were apologised for already.  19:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Permaban over this shit? Hell no. AceModerator 22:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Must log on to RW more often/regularly Scream!! (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Nutty Roux (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Ridiculous. This is a good faith editor who works hard for the wiki.  He was very poorly welcomed and in spite of that he continued to improve the wiki-Hastur! (talk)  04:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) nobsBlack Guns Matter 19:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) A fair chunk of the ayes would never dream of agitating for the defenestration of their pet assholes, despite identical - or worse - behaviour than that listed above. Bollocks to selective enforcement. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing is stopping you from starting a coop on what you lovingly labelled our "pet-assholes". Shabi DOO  22:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Hi, I'm Shabi, and I'm one of the hypocrites HBC is talking about!" Have you got any other deep personal failings you'd care to publicly acknowledge, or is that it for tonight? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, stop. 22:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's some truly high grade top level radioactive snark HBC. Why don't you inject that into the articles instead of towards users? Shabi  DOO  22:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Drop it, please, I don't want HBC to be provoked into responding either. 22:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Changed my vote due to being convinced in Community Standards talk page. Will justify the change there. TLDR: We shouldn't permaban based on being a nuisance.Coigreach (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  22:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Retracted vote

 * 1) I’m not gonna wade into the depths of all the drama honestly but I will say that I feel uncomfortable with the idea of going through the banning process while a pretty significant upheaval in the community standards and a discussion of the overall culture/moderation of the wiki is happening. I would prefer those things to remain separate. For this reason I think it’s a better idea to just end this for the time being, then wait and see what happens.  13:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)  On second thoughts, having read some of the diff links and such, there’s a lot more to this this situation than I previously thought. I don’t think it’s a good idea for me to vote on something like this without having actually experienced the Stuff. Please consider my vote cancelled, and apologies for any confusion/getting involved in things that don’t concern me   01:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) I really don't like the idea of permabanning people lightly and would have initially supported sysoprevoke and blocks of increasing lengths with further transgressions. However, his behavior in and around the coop these couple of days has been so unconstructive, that I don't think he's redeemable any more.Coigreach (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC) Changing my vote due to being convinced in Community Standards talk page. Will justify the change there.Coigreach (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) I’ll vote not to ban, but goodwill from me won’t be extended again should we see a return of “the hit list” or any other attempt to drive people off the site . —RWRW (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's fair enough. 14:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Moving vote to ban. --RWRW (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * RWRW changed his vote to aye. Bongolian (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Invalid votes

 * 1) Yeah, no Fowler (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Invalid, Fowler does not meet RationalWiki:Eligible users. Account is less than three months old. 18:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) He has definitely misbehaved, and demonstrated a lack of maturity, but permanent bans are not appropriate just for that. Kiko4564 (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Invalid, Kiko does not meet RationalWiki:Eligible users. Account is less than three months old. 18:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  18:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Invalid, account less than three months old. 20:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Don't ban Khizer (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Khizer, I am sorry to be the one to tell you this but your vote is not eligible. Your account has to be at least three months old. Again, very sorry!-Flandres (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) — Oxyaena  Harass  19:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Topic ban vote
This is the vote on the proposal to ban GR, GrammarCommie, and Oxyaena from reverting or making edits to articles related to far-left politics and ideology. The question is; instate this restriction (Aye); or, don't instate this restriction (Nay).

Aye

 * 1) A no brainer. This will not be a problem to enforce if the three users respect the outcome of the vote and if users happen to note the three users editing political and related articles.  Shabi  DOO  18:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) should have happened in the first coop tbh.  18:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) I would honestly rather stick with this than have a permaban, though I understand why permabanning is being advocated. How I vote on that is not quite decided yet but this should have happened a long time ago.-Flandres (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Long overdue by now. 01:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Just in case the total ban fails. Bongolian (talk) 07:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) T-T-T-Tie breaker. But yeah, given the seemingly not unlikely chance that GR survives his block vote, at least making sure that he pisses off on his blind spots seems like a good start. With that in mind, I also will say that for Oxy and GC, in my eyes this one can be appealed rather quickly, should either of those two want to come back to this subject at some later point (I don't think GR should really have the grounds to be able to appeal this topic ban), but if that's for now what it takes to at least attempt to defuse it all, all the better.  12:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Very civil. I will appeal it, however. 14:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) It looks like this is the only way forward. Spud (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 14:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Seems like a relatively simple way to manage things until the site gets all its ducks in a Row and such. 13:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Fair enough I guess. Coigreach (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) No point, Raven made peace with Oxyaena. No conflict remains.  19:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Scream!! (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) He has proven to be more than willing to engage in productive discussion when it comes to editing mainspace-Hastur! (talk)  04:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) How is possible to improve or make worse any article on far-left politics and ideology? nobsBlack Guns Matter 19:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, in your case, you'd have to start by learning something about them.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  22:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Invalid votes

 * 1) Definitely aye, as per Shabidoo. Kiko4564 (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Kiko, I apologize for being the one to tell you this, but unless your account is more than three months old you are not eligible to vote.-Flandres (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Ridiculous.  19:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Invalid, account less than three months old. 20:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Goat
Morons. More ayes than nays carries the vote, vice versa applies. Each vote listed is independent, multiple sanctions may be applied. A tie will result in no action. This is basic electoral knowledge, stop fucking with the layout. 17:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * To avoid over-complications, I've kept it simple this time. Of course a topic ban is impractical to enforce, symbolic at best. Perhaps pointless, as the conflict over the leftism articles ended already. 15:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So that we don't get this specific situation again, how are we applying the vote within regards to sanctions? ie. If 24 hour gets more votes than permanently block, but permanently block as a whole gets more Ayes within the vote itself (ie. perma: 7-4, 24 hour: 9-5), do we apply a permablock. Same goes for the topic ban. I want this clarified, because last time it resulted in the outcome being deemed a mess. Personally, I'd say that the heaviest majority goes (so if perma gets more Ayes than Nays, it's a perma, even if 24 hour has technically more Ayes). 17:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, what matters is the amount of ayes being larger than the amount of nays for each option. 17:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I mean, let's say that the permanent block gets 6 Ayes and 5 Nays. The 24 hour block gets 7 Ayes and 4 Nays. I'd say that in this situation, we still apply the permablock, because it's the heaviest punishment that won the Aye/Naye options. 17:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, Crow, the mathematical union of 24 hours and infinite hours is infinite hours. 17:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And this is the same kind of bickering that we got last time we had to sanction you. I'm changing this to be more of a simple majority vote, this Aye/Naye business clearly doesn't work and will lead to a dispute on the outcome. All options applied equally, no Aye/Naye business. 17:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you do, I will revert you. 17:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This makes a lot more sense and will hopefully produce less disputes over the outcome. Don't revert me. 17:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait until Dysk finds out. 17:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Dysk didn't add a third option, I reworked the vote so that the third option could be applied without this bickering. 17:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 24 hours seems a bit pointlessly short. I doubt anyone who wants to sanction Raven would go for a duration like that. 17:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That is Shabidoo's fault. Not Dysk's. 17:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I honestly think we should just remove the option. That also removes the possibility of a disputed result. 17:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see the issue. Everybody can vote on each option individually. 17:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, this entire Aye/Naye business seems poorly thought out. All it will result in is bickering over the outcome. 17:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My only comment is that I no longer have any beef with Raven, and therefore will not be participating in this coop. — Oxyaena Harass  17:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, Crow is already trying to screw with the vote.  17:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the 24 block because, if Raven survives the ban vote, admins can (and I am certain will) block Raven if he is uncivil. Shabi  DOO  17:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, Ze removed the 24h option and it happened at the wrong moment, so I reverted her on accident. It's fixed now (although I don't get why the topic ban was also removed). 17:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop editwarring. 17:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's amusing how GR is trying to discredit the vote before it happens, just like Trump is doing now. But instead of postal fraud it's claiming Crow is trying to screw with the vote. Shabi  DOO  17:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Noted. You just called me fraudulent. Not "nasty", no. 17:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Crow was completely correct. My adding the 24 hour block was a mistake, at it will do is serve to confuse the matter, allow all sorts of bickering over which vote takes precidence, if the 24 hour block has more ayes than the ban, then blah blah blah with all sorts of ammunition to try and discredit the vote. It was a smart idea removing the 24 hour block section that I added...was stupid on my part. Both of you blocking crow for that was extreme overkill. Shabi  DOO  17:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The votes are independent. Crow almost successfully merged them into a guaranteed waste of time, cause his cognitive ability is less than a 5 year old. In any case, he deserves a block for edit-warring... 18:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * For editwarring? That's "overkill"? But comparing me to a fraudulent fascist is cool or what? 18:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Dysk just abused his powers by blocking me twice in a row, saying the second time it wasn't a joke block over this shit. This is a clear abuse of power. Furthermore Dysk does not have the right to speak like a mod here, yet he is. Please refer to the CS, we voted on this kinda stuff. Techs aren't mods and shouldn't act like it. 18:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You also don't have the right to twist the coop voting options, either. Yet you did. 18:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No he wasn't edit warring there was confusion over who was trying to remove the content (as ze and I tried to do it at the same time and you were also editing which you shouldn't have as you ought not to do anything with the content of your own coop case except comments that defend your case. Shabi  DOO  18:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Answer my questions, GR. 18:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to ask, why only two options to vote for? Why not have a proposal for GR to be desysopped, sysoprevoked, and banned for an appropriate period, say pi (approx 3.1415) weeks or something like that? That would be better in my opinion. When I cast votes above, I forgot that I'm not an eligible voter. I am aware that my votes were striked out as a result of that. Sorry about that. Kiko4564 (talk)


 * Sorry if this is a dumb question, but does the voting end four days after the vote begins, or four days after the case is opened?(so by the end of today or two days from now)?-Flandres (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I notice you have problems reading, so let me help you.   19:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Needless escalation noted. I thought you were supposed to help your case...-Flandres (talk) 19:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I removed my votes because technically I am not eligible due to my account being quite new. I saw Crow and GrammarCommie planning on the RW discord to strike out my vote based on this technicality and thought "if someone is going to remove my vote, I rather do it myself". I didn't want to give this last taste of blood in their salivating mouths, just to clarify. 20:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I was musing it over, and wondering if our eligibility rules count the password scrambling LANCBs and subsequent return under a new user account. I personally decided that it wasn't worth starting potential drama over, nor do I think it's a good faith effort to do it, so I wasn't planning on it.. 20:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It does make me wonder, given that the 96 hour time period has passed, why hasn't the vote been closed yet? Kiko4564 (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * When's the next Mod election? Mod's are supposed to prevent this kinda shit, not stir it up. I'm tossing my hat back in the ring. nobsBlack Guns Matter 03:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * November. Plenty of time to set up exploratory committees, secure funding from corporate PACs etc. --RWRW (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Why the fuck...
Are votes being struck as “invalid” because accounts are less that three months old? This isn’t a moderator or board election, so why the fuck does this matter under mob rule? 2607:FB90:7C93:76E7:382F:88E4:9F88:8AD9 (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It prevents people from stuffing votes by bringing friends onto the site.-Flandres (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Na. The actual answer is that's what the rules require. See Nutty Roux (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Although, since they're not rules, but merely guidelines, one wonders what the possible motivating for striking them might be. It's a mystery. Nutty Roux (talk) 00:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see that being prone to interpretation. Again I don't agree with the vote for this being simple majority even after that the 2/3 requirement is brought to attention. 00:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to bring this up (getting rid of the three month rule that is) in the discussion in a separate topic Nutty Roux if you really don't like it and think the community should strike it...though I don't think you want that (nor would it be successful). It's an entirely sensible rule that has always been applied to everything (as far as I can remember). Shabi  DOO  00:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If this rule is going to be applied, then I think we should apply the 2/3 vote and the week long period for that vote. IMO. They're both concrete time periods with explicit numbers being set, we can't be selective on those rules. 00:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * LGM, would you please explain why those words aren't prone to interpretation, where others that use "must" are? Nutty Roux (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * One is a rule the community has ignored for several coops (and policy changes) and we are clearing up the matter now. The other is a completely non-contentious rule that we've always applied (and there is seemingly no controversy about). The alternative is changing the rule and if the 2/3 rule doesn't apply, starting up a new coop with the changed policy and going through all of this again. Shabi  DOO  00:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Answering what violates community standards I think requires degree of interpretation that includes simple violation but also needs to consider the context including severity of violation and overall consideration of wiki upkeep. Some components of community standards themselves are vague (such as here), as you stated, thus interpretation is necessary. There's already disagreement on how those are violated and how serious they are in this coop, shown by the vote. However, I don't see much room for interpretation regarding the rules that are specified: "account must be 3 months old to be eligible" and "any positive result must accrue 2/3 of total votes" and "voting must last from 7-14 days" (where 7-14 is up to discretion but a minimum is explicitly set). Hence, I am arguing that we should respect the 2/3 majority rule. 00:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Dysk
Just abused his powers by blocking me thrice in a row and claiming it's not a joke block. 18:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And now GR is doing it as well. 18:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You blocked Dysk. 18:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You dishonest little fuck. I blocked Dysk after he blocked me twice. Those 9 hour blocks are fucking annoying, I wanted to show him how annoying that was. 18:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Whoa. How is that allowed? 18:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * CUT THIS SHIT OUT. Weren't you the one who was bitching about Recent Changes? Because you and GR are now clogging up Recent Changes with these blatantly abusive blocks. 18:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

It keeps on happening. I think we might have to add a second coop for Dysk at this rate. This is very similar to Oxy's meltdown and that got her tech rights removed. (Also I got blocked again when making this edit.) 18:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you shouldn't be cooped?

18:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You are deflecting. Again.-Flandres (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Dysk gets a temp rights revoke for abusing block rights. 18:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There was no abuse. You are once again using your mod powers to silence people who don't agree with you. 18:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Answer my questions, GR. 18:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Answer LGMs questions. 18:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, answer my questions, GR. 18:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense
Crow has been a sysop since 2019. Blocking somebody who can unblock themselves has never been an abuse of block rights. Ridiculous verdict.-Hastur! (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It was repeated blocks, several times in a row while I was trying to edit, therefore disrupting my ability to edit, since I had to go and unblock myself. Now, I can pull up BLOCK here, and it already says that "overuse of minute-plus blocks, or blocks against sysops in the middle of editing, are never appreciated by the blockee, and are rather frowned upon". If we then also look at CS, there is the final line in "Demoting and promoting users", which states that a moderator can choose to promote anyone out of sysop if their behavior is partiuclarly disruptive, which is demonstrably, in accordance with our blocking policy. LGMs subsequent promotion of Dysk out of tech is also rather obvious, because otherwise it becomes impossible to enforce, doubly so because Dysk acted with authority that he fundamentally doesn't have (in fact we voted on this in the CS months ago to clarify that Techs don't have a higher authority than a regular user in the same way Moderators have when it comes to conflict resolution). This kind of behavior is very close to the same stuff that got Oxy to resign/removed by vote from Tech status and placed in sysoprevoke. Dysk is very lucky that LGM restored his rights and didn't outright coop his ass and get his Tech rights stripped, because this is the kind of behavior that a Tech does not have the authority to do. It is an abuse of sysop powers and a gross abuse of the trust associated with holding the Tech role. 07:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This was already discussed with LGM (on her talk page): she once again abused her mod powers and, since Dysk is a board member, that may have made LGM rethink her hasty decisions. Also... you blocked Dysk, which means that, if we had equal treatment of users, you would also be promoted. Anyhow, Hastur is using precedent here, which means you are wrong. Also, you called me a, which is clearly a violation of CS. So, do you want to be promoted, Crow?  08:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Answer my questions, GR. 09:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Also am I an abusive moderator or not? I restored his tech rights after he stopped and when he asked even if I personally believe he doesn't deserve them. 09:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * He is an elected staff member and his tech position isn't in any way dependent whether you consider his position valid or not. Ergo, you didn't have the right to remove it just because you don't like him. 09:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Where did I say I removed his tech rights because I didn't like him? Also please answer my questions regarding your thought processes behind your decisions and comments. If you intend to contribute to the community more it will be helpful for people to understand how you make your judgement calls. 09:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * He is an elected board member. He is not a staff member. Please refer to RationalWiki:RationalMedia_Foundation/Role. He cannot make community decisions, oversee governance or act as an arbitrator in disputes, this is explicily stated there. He fundamentally does not have the same authority as a moderator (clarified in the CS around techs). I wonder how you reach the conclusion that he can do that. That is the task of the moderator position, which he could run for of course, when those elections run around. Furthermore, LGM is also a board member, if you didn't realize that yet, so your cheap gotcha there doesn't work either. 09:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Who is saying that he is a moderator or can act like one? 09:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You're practically saying his position being board is relevant to this dispute. What did you think being a board member is about? Why did you bring up Dysk's position as a board? Your question is also a non sequitur and has been addressed in another topic. 09:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is relevant because you unilaterally removed his tech and sysop without proper cause nor due process. Again, as Hastur said (which you will ignore again, I am sure), blocking sysops is allowed and does not violate CS. 09:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly how is it relevant? What do you think the board position is about? Also it is explicitly outlined that blocking sysops in a way that is disruptive is not recommended. Do not say otherwise. 09:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, please explain yourself as I asked you through my questions. 09:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You're implying it with "since Dysk is a board member", which with this incident suggests that means he holds some authority on the way the wiki is run (which he doesn't) and that he can provide the structure in order to mediate conflicts (which he can't). Both of those are the purview of the mob and of mods respectively. His "tech position" is entirely dependent on him not abusing his role as a tech by acting like a moderator, which he frankly rather blatantly has been doing for the past few days, leading into this pathetic block war over a confusion on an additional option on the vote that Shabi accidentally added. His status as a board member, which you brought up as a defense as to why LGM walked it back doesn't make any sense (hell, she is also a board member) nor does it have bearing on this incident.
 * Also, answer LGMs questions. 09:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't imply that. So you misconstrued what I said (that he can act like a mod) and now you are saying that my words have implications that they do not. Here is what I said: "He is an elected staff member and his tech position isn't in any way dependent whether you consider his position valid or not. Ergo, you didn't have the right to remove it just because you don't like him." 09:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Let's break it down. "He is an elected staff member" <-- I demonstrated he isn't. Board members aren't staff members even if they have that vanity user right called staff. Board members have to do with the RMF, not with the wiki (although of course RMFs technical bits do apply to the wiki, but eh). "his tech position isn't in any way dependent whether you consider his position valid or not" <-- He abused his rights as a sysop, betraying the trust he has instilled into him as a tech. "Ergo, you didn't have the right to remove it just because you don't like him." <-- again, abuse of rights, disrupting another editor by repeatedly blocking them for more than 0 seconds after they unblock themselves, which our blocking policy on it's own frowns on already, and the repeated use of it make it a blatant abuse of power and disruptive behavior which our blocking policy is meant to counter. Dysk abused his power as a sysop and since tech rights are given with the trust that Techs won't be disruptive or abuse any of their powers got the consequences for it. Oxy did similar shit and had to resign and was even placed in sysoprevoke. Why are you okay with Dysk doing this very similar shit and not Oxy? 09:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * edit conflict: I don't recall removing Dysk's rights because I didn't like him. I explained earlier. Why are you making blatantly false claims on my intents? Why do you think I restored Dysk's rights after he stopped and requested rights back? 09:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That is what I meant with staff member. He is a board member (staff user right group). LGM unilaterally removed his tech right without proper cause (no violation of CS) nor due process. I will no longer entertain this topic. 09:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, answer my questions, Raven. Even answer the questions posed in this section regarding your thought processes behind your assumptions of malicious intent. You did not answer them. 09:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no "staff" here. The fact that he is a board member has nothing to do with his tech rights in any way. Answering LGMs questions instead of deflecting and pointing out users far less serious actions will increase the likelihood of you not being banned. Shabi  DOO  10:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Answer my questions

 * https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User:GR&diff=prev&oldid=2217044

Why did you make this hit list? Do you regret it? Why? Did you consider why these five users are not acting friendly to you?


 * https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki_talk:All_things_in_moderation&diff=prev&oldid=2217419

Why is your apology vague? Why do you keep making your apologizes conditional?


 * https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:Chicken_coop&diff=prev&oldid=2217895

Give me evidence of a hitlist. If it's on Discord, then will you show me that it's not Discord drama; i.e. it's relevant to the wiki? Why do you think they are hostile to you? By asking you this, do you think I don't care about the hitlist?


 * https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki_talk:All_things_in_moderation&diff=prev&oldid=2217083

Why did you post this? Do you believe it is justified? Do you believe there are other ways of communicating your discontent with Flandres?


 * https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:Chicken_coop&diff=prev&oldid=2218419

as stated in support chat: You've been removing my collapse that tried to discount and shelve away Discord drama. Do you then count Discord drama as a valid component of this coop? I will open the discussion around Discord interactions if you believe the collapse shouldn't have happened.

I will listen. I want to understand better. 03:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * These question are fair, and I would also like to see a response. 16:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You know, I definitely see why Raven was frustrated. I did tell him that making such a list made things worse not just for him but for the wiki.  Which is why he apologized.  Not to the subjects of the list (which I don't believe was necessary), but rather to the community, as the list's escalation of conflict was really only harmful to the community as a whole.  And Raven has definitely demonstrated that he cares about RationalWiki, its community, and its mission.  Does he get frustrated?  Is he upset about his treatment?  Of course!  We would all be, in his shoes.  So, what we have to do is ask ourselves "how would I react?"  A lot of people, upon being treated how Raven was treated, would have simply packed up and left the site.  And Raven has certainly been tempted to do that.  But he found a love for this likeminded community and he elected to stay.  So, he reacted to the hostility with hostility.  Was it the best choice?  No.  And he's realizing that.  But I suspect that many of us here would have reacted the same way.  How would you react if you were giving the welcoming committee Raven had been given?  -Hastur! (talk)  16:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A couple users edit warring with him on a few pages is not an overwhelming hostile reception, just stop exaggerating Hastur. That had nothing to do with the multiple other users who received endless grief from Raven, all completely unprovoked. How would I react? If I found myself being told continuously that I shouldn't behave in a way and that I am creating problems and encountering tension and disputes with many long term-users to a website I had just joined...then I would listen to them, reevaluate my behaviour and adjust it accordingly, something we've been hoping Raven would do throughout these three coops and the second and third chance we've given him. That's how I...and I would hope all new users would react. Shabi  DOO  17:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Whirled Peas
OK, no matter how the vote shakes out, there has been some bad behavior by more than just GR. I would like to remind editors that it behooves you to understand civility and to try to behave civilly. The benefit of behaving civilly is that it does not so easily inflame tempers and it also puts one on the side of good behavior. Also, if you see someone behaving uncivilly, don't ignore it, don't add it to your list of grievances. Try to confront the person right away about it in a civil manner. If that fails, bring it to the attention of a moderator. Thank you. Bongolian (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Damn, I slept for one night and the debate went from HCM 4 to HCM 2. Let's hope the pattern stops now... or we will hit HCM 0 in no time... and then... HCM -2? The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk  stalk 07:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think we have to be concerned about HCM 0. 07:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I know some people think I am uncivil but I think I'm just confronting...but in a civil way. AceModerator 08:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * HCM -1 will happen when people on RW are fighting... but this time in real life. HCM -2 hits when people on RW are fighting in real life... but with guns. HCM -3 hits when people are breaking into RW servers and trying to shut it down while police chase them. HCM -6 happens at the expansive heat death of the universe. The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk  stalk 11:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

If it helps, I do intend to reflect on my own role in this for a while. I have trying to be more polite as this coop goes on even when others escalate with me, though I acknowledge the results of that have been mixed.-Flandres (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You're not the one at fault here. — Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  14:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Civility is useful while confronting ideas of contemporary importance in a forum such as this wiki. A troll doesn't want to reconcile their ideas with others, and some of us act the part. None of us here have exactly the same ideas and values. Paradoxically, certain humanist ideas are dominant here, despite the fact that those who would claim issue X has a satisfactory, politically-aligned resolution entertain a weak hypothesis. Ariel31459 (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Alright
I don't think more votes will come. You can close the coop case anyway. I will just log out and move on. If I by chance forgot to delete something in my userspace, I would appreciate if it was deleted/hidden, if possible. Thank you. 00:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The community went out of its way to establish a procedure for this coop and has tried to accommodate all involved parties as best as it could, given the circumstances. I would strongly recommend that this coop be allowed to complete as planned. Your commitment to log out and move on is noted; however, you have done this trick before and reappeared after a couple of days as if nothing had happened. There's no way we can take what you say as truthful given your past actions. And certainly, no one wants you to come back in here again in three weeks and claim that the coop was shut down prematurely and didn't follow community standards or moderator rules or whatever. Regards —cosmikdebris talk stalk 01:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Raven, penalty votes of this nature require a 2/3 majority of all votes cast. As things stand, it's 13/22, or slightly less than 60% aye. Don't give up yet. Nutty Roux (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That requirement has been considered unofficially void for quite some time, as the permabanning of Ken showed.-Flandres (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is actually a very interesting development. I would argue that the banning of Ken Demyer was then invalid.-Hastur! (talk)  01:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Even those who voted against it(myself included) did not protest that at the time. That set a precedent. Look at coop archive 101 for more info. Most of the mods were fine with it. The community standards are guidelines, not graven commandments that explicitly overrule the will of the majority.-Flandres (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought we changed the community standards so that they aren't guidelines? Anyways just because we forgot the democratically established rules that govern our community doesn't mean they're invalid.  If we have zero adherence to the guidelines that sets an unpleasant precedent.  RationalWiki is a mobocracy and there's always going to be some flexibility when it comes to interpreting the rules but permabanning a user is serious enough that it warrants taking the rules seriously-Hastur! (talk)  01:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the standards when you're trying to ban someone for violating the standards without citing any standards he's violated: repulsive. Getting things that wrong doesn't set a precedent. Nutty Roux (talk) 02:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on voting
RationalWiki:Community_Standards, in addition to the 2/3 vote, also says the penalty vote needs to last for a week. We're in here for a while if that's the case. 02:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We can leave this open for a week-Hastur! (talk) 02:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I will point out that the heading there is "Common guidelines" and at the start of the RationalWiki:Community Standards page, it says, "There are no site rules". I did not break any rules in permabanning Ken. I did not abuse my powers. I was carrying out the will of the mob. Spud (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Nah nobody gives zero shits about the Community Standards. The will of the mob, in the form of LGM, is to get rid of Raven and anyone who supports him. Ergo, essentially banning User:Ze as a "preemptive strike", banning Raven unilaterally, making sure to detech me (twice) and sysoprevoke over minor issues, merely because I dared to undo her obvious abuse of power (banning and sysoprevoke unilaterally). Do I care? At this point nah I'm clearly not wanted, Ze is clearly not wanted, Raven is clearly not wanted... if anyone needs to contact me about the board let me know via one of the options listed on my userpage, I'm going to pull a GC now. 09:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If enough of a fuss is made about the two thirds vote thing (I think its ridiculous that everything else is simple majority except this) then I will start a new coop and propose a 6 month ban which I am certain will pass. Shabi  DOO  18:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Spud is right that it still just says "common guidelines" and the community standards page still says there are no rules. Saying users who disagree with the outcome of a vote can overrule a majority, especially a not-so-small majority, based on a rule that is not even an actual rule, is not in keeping with a mobocracy.-Flandres (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know myself, man. I'm not really buying that we should just go with simple majority? Why should we? 19:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally, I just don't like the idea of allowing nine users to overrule fourteen. This site is run in a democratic manner. If it were a margin of one or two votes I would be more sympathetic to this argument(that would reflect weaker support) but if we are going past three then it just spits in the face of the majority.-Flandres (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why a two-thirds majority is suddenly necessary for this vote but not for every single other on this site. The only place I can think of that requires two-thirds votes is in the American congress for overturning vetoes and the final stage of a Presidential impeachment and perhaps the parliaments of a few other countries for similar matters. Just about everywhere else passes literally everything with simple majorities including major referendums that involve regions separating into new countries or the UK withdrawing from the E.U. I do not think that banning a toxic user is on par with impeaching the President of the United States. Shabi  DOO  19:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you guys are talking about ignoring a rule that has been in place for a long time and both explicitly applies to the situation and doesn't do what you want. If you don't like it, change it. But it's the rule. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, you are ignoring what spud said about the start of the community standards saying these are not site rules.-Flandres (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe Ken was banned in the same way and from what I remember there wasn't a two-thirds majority for Unlicensed Thinker either. Wasn't it like 8 to 5? I don't recall several policy votes having a two-thirds majority vote, nobody brought it up then. Perhaps we should revisit those community standards this weekend and change that stupid guideline. Shabi  DOO  20:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A "rule" that monumentally stupid should indeed be changed, especially because it has not been enforced for so long(so clearly only a minority care about it, otherwise these bans would have been instantly decreed illegitimate and reversed), but I will merely schedule that to "after this matter is settled."-Flandres (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The two-thirds rule only pertains to permabans. In principle, the same sysops who only get a simple majority vote could call for a rule change on permabans, then if successful, call for a second vote on the permaban based on a simple majority. It would probably be simpler and less fraught, as suggested by Shabidoo, just to call for a subsequent vote on a medium-term block for GR. Bongolian (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Have never heard of this two thirds thing. 21:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, let me point out the amount of votes needed to ban would come out as a unclean fraction. It is honestly just less trouble to ignore this "rule" (which is not even an actual rule, as the community standards clearly state) and just have a majority vote like what we have had in the past for this and like every other function of the site. We can change the standards later. The will of a majority must be respected in a democracy. Before anyone says I am a vengeance obsessed hypocrite note I did not protest Ken being banned by a simple majority even though I voted against it. I lost, fair and square.-Flandres (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd recommend considering the spirit and likely origins of the supermajority guideline. From what I know, since RW is founded on the idea that we weren't going to be as heavyhanded as Conservapedia (as well as an actual desire to adhere to facts), the supermajority guideline seems to me mostly like a remnant from the era where the main trolls that RW had to deal with were Conservapedia editors looking to stir up shit. As it was eloquently put in Ken's coop; people from that era seem to be regarded as frenemies, which meant that they likely only got banned if they reached a supermajority of "this person is actually fucking dangerous", which to me seems where the rule comes from. With that out of the way, let's look at precedent/current status of this guideline, if we look at coop cases in recent history that got to this point (skipping GR), it wasn't applied when banning Ken, wasn't applied when banning Unlicensed Thinker, was technically applied (but a unanimous one, there were no opposite votes) when banning AoT, was unanimously applied on Tokyo and A768, was applied (but with very minor splits and almost everyone agreed on a punishment at a basic) on HBC and it wasn't applied on Tyrone8934. The rest are not coop cases which dealt with punitive votes or did not result in punishments being applied. I've left out pre-2019 coop cases. That being said, the conclusion I'm reaching here is that the supermajority rule was never followed in the first place, when votes are cutting it close and that ultimately it boils down to a regular majority on the decision end. This means that the segment should be removed from the CS and I don't think it oughta be applied here either, given we have no real precedent for following that section in the CS, and the CS is ultimately a guideline, not a rulebook (the only real rules are in our blocking policy tbh, the rest is all decided on by the mob when things get taken to the coop afaik). 21:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC) So I don’t really edit much here but to let you’ll in on a little secret. I was a different user here from late 2013 to early 2015, and involved in my fair share of coops. In that time I’ve noticed RW has had to deal with much different types of challenges — the trolling here is much less “jokey” (for want of a better word), more serious, and the fact that poor moderation in online spaces has now lead to fascist shit has definitely affected that (obvs not that it’s directly relevant to this case). I think it is important to stick by guidelines so that actions are consistent, but I also think it’s important to be open to changing contexts etc. For this reason, I think it would be worth pausing this coop, having a brief (say, 2-5 day) discussion/vote on the community standards and then apply it here. As for previous blocks, I think it would be worth evaluating them on a case-by-case basis — if a block was particularly controversial, then I think reopening the book would be useful, but also that these cases should have a definitive time limit to make sure things don’t get out of control. At the end of the day, every major RW drama is essentially just an evaluation of the current “vibe” of the community, and I think that it’s important to sort out the issues that come along, instead of just saying “we banned XYZ, problem solved”. I haven’t talked enough to any of the participants to come to a direct decision, and I’ve been “out of the game” for so long that I don’t have any opinion on the 2/3 majority issue. What is obvious, though, is that certain issues and confusions in things like the community guidelines, precedent, etc, need to be fixed soon or this drama will spiral out of control. So anyway, TL;DR  — as important as it is to solve this drama quickly, it’s also extremely important to fix the underlying issues, so that RW can enter a period of reasonable stability. Obviously feel free to ignore me — I’m not a heavy hitter and the last drama I remember involved Brxbrx and Nutty so I’m not super on the ball. But thems just my Thoughts. 10:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 21:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So, you're talking about changing the community standards just so you can ban someone?-Hastur! (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Changing it to reflect the will of the majority. If it needs to be changed...the community standards don't claim to be absolute rules. Read them. If we should change them, it would be to make them more democratic. The way I see it, this requirement is kinda like the filibuster-well intentioned but easily abused to force the opinions of a minority on the majority. Again, I did not protest when ken got banned even though I voted against it because I just thought it was a stupid rule even if it benefited something I believe in.Flandres (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not keen on trying to do simple majority than supermajority either. But the 2/3 should've been brought up much earlier (and that it has to be reminded also makes me question of such necessity of a rule; to be fair, the eligible users to be over 3 months, I also am not aware existed either). I think the consideration needed to try to consistently apply to more than just a couple of cases (i.e. should we reopen those many other coop cases after this) is going to be more trouble than it's worth. I suggest relooking at this rule and then once the changes or lack of are done, we certainly should have easier access to review the rules rather than have the rules be scattered through several pages. Eligible vote SHOULD be clearly outlined in the default text of the page, and so should the voting process itself (right now, it is linked but I believe it should also be spelled out, a repetition, on this page too; it's easily overlooked). 22:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So who volunteers to review all the bans we’ve done over the past 3 or so years? I ain’t doing it. 01:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Instead of proactively undoing bans we should instead just let people appeal bans on an individual basis. If Ken, for example, wishes to appeal his ban we would hold another vote.  This is the best solution if only because very few people will actually appeal their bans.  If we DO get a lot of people appealing their bans, we can vote for them in batches.  For example, if some troll elects to inform Tisane, Abd, and Mikemikev that their bans are subject to appeal (although I suspect their penalty votes reached the threshold), we can just hold a vote for all of them at once-Hastur! (talk)  01:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I must admit that I had forgotten about the 2/3 thing. In point of fact the number of permabans we have handed out is pretty small. If we made mistakes in the past that would be grounds for appeal - not grounds for ignoring the standards.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is possible Dysk should not have been the one to formulate the questions being voted on. I think a medium length ban would succeed.  Some users have lamented not being given that choice. Ariel31459 (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 20:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * How about we have a vote on whether we should keep the 2 thirds rule in relation to voting in the CS, or not, then we proceed accordingly on this vote? The two thirds rule technically applies to any removal of a user from the site, whether temporarily, or permanently. Kiko4564 (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Such a vote is already taking place (RationalWiki talk:Community Standards). Bongolian (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Not important, feel free to revert but
Maybe it’s just me but this deffo doesn’t have an HCM 2 vibe to me — sure it’s heated, stressful, and lasted a long time, but most of the wiki still functions. Tbh I’d say it’s HCM 3 compared to previous dramas. Anyway. Sorry for the useless addition if it’s unhelpful feel free to collapse or revert. 10:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * HCM 3 is pushing it now, honestly, this is pretty dead. 02:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think HCM 5 is best. If I'm wrong, feel free to change it back to HCM 6. Kiko4564 (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I have started a discussion to change the two-thirds vote policy
here Shabi  DOO  14:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Pause coop until community standards is resolved or continue coop with two thirds rule
There is debate about whether the two-thirds rule should be applied considering it is a contentious rule that has been ignored for some time. Shall we pause this coop as has been suggested until the rule is resolved (here)) or continue with two-thirds rule? Shabi  DOO  01:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Rule changes don't apply retrospectively, y'all going to have to do the vote all again, if you want to do simple majority voting. In the meantime, there is no real point in closing the existing vote. 02:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's according to Article 1 of the US constitution Dysk. Rule changes can be made to apply retroactively unless explicitly forbidden in the Wiki bylaws. Is it?Ariel31459 (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously suggesting imposing ex post facto rules based on the premise of mobocratic supremacy? Anyhow, it ain't just in the US constitution, a similar restriction applies in almost every legal system. Oh yeah, and it's a human right (Art. 11:2 UDHR). 00:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not support ex post facto application of rules. I runs contrary to the rule of law, which while not codified on RW, is a good thing to adhere to. Assuming the simple-majority permaban rule passes, I would support letting this coop case expire, then if the new rule on simple-majority passes, it could be re-voted if desired. For accounts that have been permabanned in the past based on simple-majority votes, I don't think we should proactively do anything about them. If the banned person is still around to care, they can petition to have their case readjudicated in the coop. Bongolian (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither do I. It's just not against the rules. Of course, in a mobocracy, a bunch of idiots can agree to anything. Makes me feel right at home.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you mean that it "is against the rules"? Kiko4564 (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no rule against shoving your head up a camels backside. Similarly, there is no rule against breaking the rule of law. 21:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Breaking the law is a lot more popular than that other thing, vainglorious as some of our users might be to have done so.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

No let's carry on with this coop vote, with the two thirds rule for a site ban being required. Kiko4564 (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Today is the last day of voting. As it stands, I will not be banned. 22:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Given the ratio is fairly close, I suggest letting the vote run it's full 2 week course, especially given how your recent actions already caused one person to switch their vote. Seems the most fair to me. 22:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I know you are unfamiliar with the concept of fairness, especially when the subject is the " " that I am, but the vote is supposed to run a week. Nothing prevents you from starting a 4th coop to get rid of me. 22:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The vote is supposed to run for 7 to 14 days. I suggest going for 14 here because as a vote change from today indicates, the coop is not as of yet resolved, ergo I recommend 14 days. 22:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, I let the mods decide. Have fun canvassing (or whatever verb you want to insert for "calling reinforcements from ratcord" instead) for 12 more votes to get me banned, I guess. 22:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Let this run until 9 September. Spud (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, you need 12 votes. Good luck. 05:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Majority be damned… or not
Given how things appear to be going… Based on voting, it's unlikely that the two-thirds rule will change, and there is only a simple majority for permaban and for topic ban of GR. I propose a vote on sysoprevoke for GR. A sysoprevoke would have the effect of pushing GR towards more productive/less controversial edit topics, should her return, under threat of short-term blocks. Bongolian (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If it ends the disruptive behavior than I am okay with it.-Flandres (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Even if I didn't abuse sysop tools? What is this? I also don't plan to edit this wiki anymore since I have my own now. I only want sysop so I can see my deleted pages. It saves me the hassle of asking someone else to do it. Not to mention that this repeated cooping of me is tiresome and disruptive in itself. 03:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Raven I will gladly delete all of those pages for you. Just put a whole list of them and I'll take care of all of it myself. You don't need sysop revoke. Shabi DOO  16:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I will start a new coop in a couple weeks with the sysop revoke as one of the options. The other options will depend on the results of the CS vote. Shabi  DOO  16:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not to delete. It's to copy the content of it for my own wiki. I don't need your favor, thanks. Have fun making another coop targeting me, though. Please cite CS violations when you do. 16:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me cite one to you from the "Conduct" part: "If you are engaged in an ongoing argument with another user about something, please keep the dispute within the relevant talk pages. Don't turn every possible page you or they appear on into another front of the battle." Your recent attempts to turn the issue about Dysk vaporizing bunch of coop into a part of your flame war against LGM is a clear violation of this. I changed my vote on banning you because we should try to be more inclusive here and I believe in second (and third and fourth and googolplexth) chances. Most of the time anyway. But I would very much vote in favour of giving you a long block (6-12 months). Because you need to grow the fuck up before you're allowed a possibility of redemption here. At the very least you should get the Oxy treatment of being turned essentially into a wiki pariah who won't get their mop back until they prostrate themselves for months for their crimes against common decency.Coigreach (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Except I did this on the mod page, where it belongs. So you're wrong. 17:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You did it in a section of that page that clearly wasn't about LGM. So now you're just being a nitpicker. Or a commafucker as we Finns like to say. In any case, you're intentionally picking fights and should just fuck off until you've had couple of months to cool down. You've got your own wiki now. Stick to it if you please. Coigreach (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Lol. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  17:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The dispute was on the relevant talk page. Try again. 17:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Block GR for 10 years. Was this vote on the relevant portion of the talk page GR? Coigreach (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

17:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Back to your old antics of hiding behind templates when you can't find the words to defend your behavior I see. Top job sir, carry on. Coigreach (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * GR I certainly hope the next coop is successful...thank you. Shabi  DOO  18:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am fairly certain that your constant use of that template as a toxic passive aggressive response to users when you don't have any reasonable reply in defense of your position...is a notable motivation for people voting to ban you. In any case...I don't care what the particular task is you need to be done, tell me (or list them on a page in your sandbox) and I (or other users) will help get it done. Any of this is preferable to giving you back your tools. I would be happy to do any of it so that we can finish all of this before your departure (which you have announced twice now despite posting on the Saloon and other pages as well as voting at least twice). Shabi DOO  18:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Your constant cooping is also toxic. Yet, here you are. 18:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)i
 * You were on this website for just a few weeks by the time you started two coops which, is pretty bloody insane when you think about it (p.s. I've never started a coop myself yet...you're the first user who ever made life so unpleasant enough I have been motivated enough to do it). In any case...you said twice now in the last few days that you're leaving, so unless you just said that for some other end (which I'm sure you didn't) none of this really matters cause you'll be gone once you've sorted everything out...right? So let's get that taken care of shall we? Shabi  DOO  19:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll leave if I want. 19:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So you aren't actually leaving like you said you would? Shabi  DOO  20:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's quite unlikely that GR will leave on his own accord because he previously LANCBed to avoid punishment from a coop case, and because his still editing various pages right now. It's part of the problem: if someone LANCBs and then decides to come back, it's not a problem. However, if someone LANCBs to avoid punishment then comes back and causes unnecessary conflict, it's much more poblematic. Bongolian (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We already decided to resolve coop cases even if somebody LANCBs, if I recall-Hastur! (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess socdem wiki isn’t panning out lol. 21:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * @Bongolian: The topic ban vote appears to be passing by a majority so far. According to the stated rules, a simple majority is required for all penalties except the permanant ban. It may be a pain to enforce, but as of now, it is passing.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it's time
To close this coop and be done with it. Not much else will happen and the rule of law has been upheld. 19:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's leave it up until September 9 so that none may contest the results-Hastur! (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * How about you actually honor your word the next time you pull a LANCB to weasel your way out of a corner. The "rule of law" is the one you deliberately sought to cheat, shame on you. LGM's resigned as mod and people have genuinely left because of you, and you expect us to be okay with that? — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  19:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, Oxyaena, it takes a staggering lack of self-awareness for you to be calling anybody else out on LANCBing and yet returning-Hastur! (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can explain your double standard in favor of Raven and against me for once. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  19:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What double standard? Haven't I explained this to you already?  Please provide an instance of a double standard and I'll explain it again.
 * I would be highly interested to understand what forgiving everything Raven including has ever done (including derailing discussions and his ugly rampage) and yet (sometimes rightfully sometimes not) criticising everything Oxy has done...ahem...is not a double standard. I must have missed that explanation somewhere but please repeat it or give us a link. Shabi  DOO  20:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just so we're clear, I've never voted to permaban Oxyaena. I have, however, consistently been in favor of keeping her in sysoprevoke and stripped of tech rights; this has been on the grounds that she misuses her sysop rights, is not qualified to have tech rights, and has not demonstrated the maturity necessary to be given those rights back.  Raven, on the other hand, I oppose putting in sysoprevoke on the grounds that he has not misused his sysop rights- the only valid reason for which we put people in sysoprevoke.  As you can see I have been very even in the application of my judgement.  Moreover, the assertion that I am never critical of Godless Raven is false.  When he does something wrong I certainly call him out on it, sometimes publicly, other times through direct messaging on Discord.  He has his flaws, as do we all.  We're only human.-Hastur! (talk)  20:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

If Oxy doesn't have the maturity to have Sysop tools then Raven doesn't and it's ridiculous to claim otherwise. That Raven hasn't misused his Sysop tools is also ridiculous (might we forget the stupid blocks for one example). Shabi DOO  20:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Placing someone in sysoprevoke and removing them from sysoprevoke are very different things. We only take rights away when they are abused (before you bring up Dysk, I voted to restore his rights on the grounds that it was a one-time offense against a longstanding tenure of good service), and we give them back at discretion.  Since Raven never committed an action warranting that his sysop rights be removed, I have advocated against their removal.-Hastur! (talk)  20:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I've criticized Oxy quite harshly on many occasions, and for the most part she's taken it maturely. Even when I've been unfair to her, which I admit has happened. 20:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll still advocate for letting the coop run to it's maximum conclusion, given how close the tie is right now. Even if there won't be a 2/3rd majority. Also, if I wanted to be petty, I could point out that since Raven LANCBed, he technically broke the one guideline that he wasn't allowed to do during this case, which is LANCB (given he pulled another password scramble). I can't be arsed to raise this as a proper point though or argue about it, and I don't feel entirely confident doing that, so someone else can do that if they want to. 20:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, let it run to the end. At least then no-one gets to rules lawyer about it afterwards. Coigreach (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The guideline that LGM imposed out of nowhere that is null and void and not based on the CS and also voted against by a majority in a recent voting decision? Yeah, fuck that. Don't care. I'll "break it" (edit: didn't break anything since it's some random guideline without validity) again if I have to. 21:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not a big deal. We'll let the vote run its course, and there won't be any doubts as to its legitimacy-Hastur! (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

This is going to come to an end at 18:00 UTC on Wednesday 9 September 2020 and not a second sooner. I really don't think there's any chance that 2/3 of voters will say that want Raven banned. It's even quite likely that a simple majority will say they want him to stay. But it's also looking pretty certain that a topic ban will be imposed. I very much doubt that Raven would survive a fourth Coop case. But for everyone's sake, including his, I hope that never happens. Spud (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Raven is right. There is no rule of law at this wiki.


 * There is a lot of unnecessary drama though. Because there is no rule of law.Rintintin (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of unnecessary drama because there are a lot of people who enjoy filling up content in the Coop but never edit mainspace. I checked out the bytes size contents of recent pages and it goes around from 400B to 40B. The coop? This recent one is around 175kB. This is why this wiki is decaying . And people like Shabidoo and Spud want ANOTHER coop to get rid of me since this one didn't cause their desired outcome (I think it was Nutty who called this "double jeopardy"). 16:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This wiki is going to lose a lot of editors to Wikipedia if the unnecessary drama continues. Or maybe a rival wiki will be created by disgrunted editors.Rintintin (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It ain't an "if." A fork wiki was recently created, a few contributors did fuck off back to Wikipedia. 16:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We need you at Socdemwiki, my dear friend . Your technical expertise will be appreciated there. You aren't appreciated here for all the work and dedication you have already put in and I don't think this will change at any point, tbh. 16:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * GR, I would be utterly humiliated if a majority of users on a website I participated in wanted to PERMANENTLY ban me after I had only been a member for a dozen weeks, especially a website that RARELY bans members permanently. I wouldn't take some hollow satisfaction that it wasn't a full two thirds reflect inside and ask myself what am I doing that is so toxic and nonconstructive and I'd modify it to try to get along with them, like 98% of the rest of the members on the website do. If I were a new member on the website I wouldn't be acting like some persecuted established person and I'd find a way to contribute without being toxic and finding so much resistance and so many people frustrated enough to type out 175kb of text to get rid of me. Shabi  DOO  16:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, no, no. It’s everyone else who is toxic and unreasonable. GR is never in the wrong. 16:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Some cultures are so toxic that being banned by them is a sign of normalcy and a badge of honor.


 * The degree of lawlessness and rancor at RationalWiki has reached a level where a fork of it may happen.Rintintin (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As Dysk mentioned before, dear Rintintin, this already happened (see Socdemwiki). I have no plans of editing mainspace here (hence retired). I have my own wiki now where this sort of oncogenic drama culture doesn't prevail. 17:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ironic, since you have been a leading participant in much of the drama in recent days (which is why I switched my vote above). And you're not retired, you've probably made more edits here in the last week than you have to Socdemwiki. --RWRW (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, then let me prove you wrong. Go to Special:Editcount, type "GR" and submit. I have 81 edits. Now, go to the Socdemwiki analog and do the same but with "Godless Raven": it will return 171 edits. So, will you apologize for being wrong? Unlikely. And I am retired. I will not edit mainspace. This is what I mean by retired. If you disagree with my use of the word... well, good for you! 17:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's hard to explain the 5th Amendment to someone with a double-digit IQ, but that doesn't mean the evidence can't be used. nobsBlack Guns Matter 17:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I said "probably." And yes, 81 edits is an awful lot from someone who has retired. Retiring from a wiki implies making zero edits and walking away from the site. By saying you're "retired from mainspace" you confirm my suspicion that you're only here to get in arguments on talk pages. My change of heart was correct it seems. --RWRW (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As I expected, you won't apologize for being wrong. I will no longer entertain this subject. 17:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A very convenient way of getting out of addressing my points. I'll do you a deal, if I apologise for not counting your edits will you address my point about you only staying here to stir up trouble? --RWRW (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

A retired user does not make 80 edits. You aren't retired you're waiting to see the results of the coops and then magically not be retired if everything works out for you. It's a way to save face except you aren't fooling anybody. And a user who has only been around for a dozen weeks feeling they have the ability to pull off a meaningful "fork" is sad and hilarious but mostly sad. Shabi DOO  17:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Raven won’t retire. He’s admitted that he likes drama and starting shit. He’ll just stick around and troll for the foreseeable future. That’s what he’s come to. 17:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * A second fork or even a third fork may be in the cards.


 * Why is there so much at RationalWiki compared to other wikis? Is there a main cause? Or are there a number of major causes?Rintintin (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Take a seat & STFU. There's likely going to be a vote on your sysoprevoke once the current coop's done, and you're on track to lose that spectacularly. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. 4th coop here we go. 18:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not want another Coop to get rid of you. I specifically said earlier that I hope that a fourth Coop never happens for everybody's sake, including yours. To me, it looks like there's a good chance that a simple majority of voters will say that they want you to stay. There's certainly no way that 2/3 will say they want you to leave. Which is fine. I can live with that. When I don't get my way, which happens quite often, I accept it and move on.
 * And I'll state the bleeding obvious by saying that it's easy to have no drama on a wiki that's only a week old and has fewer than ten users. Spud (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The Nay count is wrong; RWRW didn't cancel his vote when he switched. nobsBlack Guns Matter 02:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well then wait until I am running for mod then.  02:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Aren't you not eligible? You got sysoprevoked in coop case 104.-Flandres (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No longer sysoprevoke. And thus, eligible. 04:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

This wiki should be renamed to "Dramaqueenwiki".Rintintin (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * GR, it does not say "currently in sysoprevoke." It says "received the sysoprevoke penalty." It is not "whether or not you are sysoprevoked right now", it is "have you been sysoprevoked." For instance, if oxy is demoted again she could not run either.-Flandres (talk) 04:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And why would you run for admin GR? You're retired after all. Shabi  DOO  05:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I love how using that retired template makes you squirm, shabi. 05:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If you look up Ace's history, who is currently a mod, he was also sysoprevoked at some point. So, there is precedent already. Enjoy my mod run. 05:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You love instigating users on the wiki to squirm? Shabi  DOO  06:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)I dunno, when we ignored the two-thirds rule citing precedent, you(and others) had a shrieking fit until it was put back on the books. It seems to have worked because nobody brought it up...and rest assured, the rule will be brought up this year. Are you not the one who rants about rule of the law? Seems a bit hypocritical of you,hmhmhmhm....-Flandres (talk) 06:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Only if they are bad faith saloon editors, Shabi, like some people in here are. I am retired, I said I wouldn't edit mainspace. So far, I haven't. If you have a different understanding of retired, that's really good for you. Right, and then the old guard advised me on this subject and we prevented an injustice. Clearly the wording of the rule is about how if someone is currently in sysoprevoke, they shouldn't be eligible. The same way we don't castigate people forever for mistakes they have done in the past. Unless you want to argue that Ace should step down as a moderator as of right now? 06:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Constitutionally, Ace should step down, but I would rather see the issues surrounding that wait till the election. Also, no, the wording is quite clear that it affects everyone who received the sysoprevoke penalty. Did you actually read it?-Flandres (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * lol! Yeah Flandres, this is why I can't engage with you.


 * 06:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, again you bring out that template when you can't come up with an actual argument. Did you read the rule? Seems the modern day Giordano can't actually argue...-Flandres (talk) 06:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's also quite easy to keep your wiki free of drama if you're the founder, you're the only one with administrator tools and you can just ban whoever you like without having to answer to anybody. It's a bit different when you've been elected to a position of trust that can be taken away from you again and you're answerable to everybody else on the wiki. Spud (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You may think that dear, but anyone who worked with me in a position of power knows I care what others think and I appreciate cooperation. I won't ban people for disagreeing with me (unless they are bigots, like nobs, then I have no tolerance for this harmful shit). People like hastur, dysk, Z and others treat me like a human being and not a monster, hence why I can interact with them friendly and disagree with them in a civil manner. 08:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Quick Q
If I go and stein through a vote and say “please don’t count this vote”, is that enough to make sure it’s not counted??? 01:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Your vote has been redacted and won't be counted. Please don't apologize for "voting in things that don't concern you". As a user on RationalWiki, this concerns you as much as anybody. However, if you feel that you jumped into a situation without knowing all the facts, I can certainly understand that. Spud (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yeah, “doesn’t concern me” wasn’t really the right way to express what I meant, it was more like “not something I’m directly involved with” I guess??? Basically what I meant was that since I’ve never been a participant in any of these arguments etc., and have only briefly interacted with p much everyone significantly involved in this case, I figured that I didn’t have enough context or direct understanding of the issue to take a position. I did vote at first not because of an understanding of the situation, but of the principle that I thought, in general, a community standards case AND a coop that are directly interrelated should not be done at the same time. However, this whole thing seems quite complex and, after realising that I had only minimal understanding of the situation, I decided that I simply did not have enough information to have the right to affect the outcome of something that clearly is a lot more personal and important to other people. I also decided that it was a good idea to involve myself in this shit that just seems very exhausting/unpleasant for the people actually involved, especially when I could just easily not participate. Finally, I had not fully considered the long-term effects of what my vote might do — I assumed the issue would just somehow be resolved after the community standards vote, but I now think that I have no real reason to assume that.


 * Anyway, sorry for the rambling “awake for 48+ hours” post. I just felt like I needed to explain myself bc the previous comments I wrote did not represent my views in the way I wanted them to. I would also like to point out that this has no bearing on my vote/positions on the CS issue — that’s all shit that I feel confident in saying, bc of previous experience unrelated to this coop, and because of general/“abstract” principles. Anyway sorry for the Wall of Text, but I hope this makes my reasoning clear, and I’m sorry for the previous miscommunication. 12:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * (also autocorrect fucking hates me so please ignore any dumb shit or typos in there thanks) 12:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

This should be coming to an end in a few hours
There are about 3 hours to go until this Coop case expires. I won't be around when that happens because it's coming up to 11:00 at night in Taiwan and I'm knackered after a long day. It looks like GR has escaped a permaban but will have a topic ban imposed him. Which may be moot if he no longer wants to edit mainspace and wants to be a full time troll instead. But there you go. I hope that when I get up in the morning, this case will have been closed and archived. Spud (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah its closed now. Raven's ban vote fails to get 2/3 majority, but, and  (if he returns) are all topic banned "from reverting or making edits to articles related to far-left politics and ideology." I'll put notices on talk pages. --RWRW (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Fiat justitia ruat caelum. 20:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is America, stop speaking Spanish!!! 20:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a reference to, a Roman senator who misused legal pretexts to make up for his anger when he corrected on the facts, punishing people all around just to safe face for his very fragile ego. 20:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

In De Ira (On Anger), Book I, Chapter XVIII, Seneca tells of Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso, a Roman governor and lawmaker, when he was angry, ordering the execution of a soldier who had returned from a leave of absence without his comrade, on the grounds that if the man did not produce his companion, he had presumably killed the latter. As the condemned man was presenting his neck to the executioner's sword, there suddenly appeared the very comrade who was supposedly murdered. The centurion overseeing the execution halted the proceedings and led the condemned man back to Piso, expecting a reprieve. But Piso mounted the tribunal in a rage, and ordered the three soldiers to be executed. He ordered the death of the man who was to have been executed, because the sentence had already been passed; he also ordered the death of the centurion who was in charge of the original execution, for failing to perform his duty; and finally, he ordered the death of the man who had been supposed to have been murdered, because he had been the cause of the death of two innocent men.
 * In short, Piso's justice is a good metaphor for this coop: when a couple vengeful and power-obsessed egos want to act like might is right and scramble find any reason to castigate the one that they wanted to punish in the first place, not caring whether injustice is going to happen or not. 20:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * On that note I think its time to archive. --RWRW (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)