RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive115

LiberalTears
Okay guys, are we actually this upset over the heads of game mounted pic captioned with the names of RW editors? Are we really that thinskinned? Is this who we are now? My screen name was up there. I don't feel threatened by it in the least and I find it difficult to imagine a good faith argument for finding that threatening. We're blocking this guy for that? Really? Also, somebody removed a WIGO he posted about Susan Collins winning reelection. Seriously guys? You people don't find this silly? What's the line from Zoolander, "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here." What does it say about us if we can't rise above somebody small like him? Are we a wiki dedicated to free thought and discourse or are we a jealously guarded echo chamber? Hell, go ahead and ban me for this post. I'm sure it's very offensive-Hastur! (talk) 05:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Meh. Once other people threaten to kill you over petty shit (in person) a few times you stop taking passive-aggressive pseudo-threats that seriously. Speaking as someone on that list. 05:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was serious. The permaban for LT was well-deserved because of that. Even Nobs thought it was serious enough to take the page down. Bongolian (talk) 05:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove the WIGO. I just commented it out.Spud (talk) 05:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have been threatened numerous times IRL and equating the mounted heads to that is laughable. Spud@undefined still pretty silly, I'm afraid-Hastur! (talk)  06:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As stated on ATIM, I personally was amused. That said, no way around it: that was LT posting a hitlist of editors he hated, which is well... Not a good thing. Should he be perma'ed for it? Personally, I think no. Would I go to bat for him not getting perma'ed? No. LTs tenure on this site can at its best be described as an extensive attempt at pestering and poking at established editors and injecting bullshit on our site or using us to play telephone game for Conservapedias uptime issues. His loss would translate to a net positive for the wiki. That said, commenting out his WIGO at first glance seems a bit petty. 07:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's one thing, Hastur, to disagree with people indignant about being threatened. It's another to trivialise it with the stupid and pugnacious header "liberal tears" which is so fucking trite. Nothing but a pitiful conservative tactic of dismissing people's valid concerns. This is why you would make a terrible and obnoxious admin. Not because you might be wrong (though in this case you are) but because of the way you approach problem solving...which involves no problem solving and just telling people to ignore stuff you don't seem to mind and just behave in the way you think they should. Good luck with that. Shabi  DOO  11:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * All right. I've put his WIGO back. I've replaced the link to the draft that I deleted with one to the Wikipedia article.
 * I should point out that LT is short for Liberaltears. His user name on Conservapedia is Liberaltears.
 * And I'm not going to say anything in support of LT or against his permaban. Of course, if anyone wants me dead, it's not LT, it's Ken. My user name was one of the original ones under that image back in August before LT edited it. Spud (talk) 11:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Ahh. Then I appologise Hastur. I had no idea LT stood for something so stupid. Shabi DOO  12:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

i dont it matters whether anyone feels personally threatened by some prick on line or not. threats of violence or of some other kind of harm should not be tolerated no matter how unlikely or oblique they may be. nor should the test for such things be if you personally feel threatened or offended yourself by something - it doesnt invalidate how someone else might be effected by somethingAMassiveGay (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hastur, I shouldn't have to spell this out. But here goes. You shouldn't assume that everyone has the same level of vulnerability as yourself. You should read the Eight Stages of Genocide. That deleted webpage brings us to stage three of eight:
 * Classification ("secular leftists", "atheists")
 * Symbolization: not present on that page, but widespread in society (alt-right memes, etc.)
 * Dehumanization: "A society goes from simply defining another group as 'not us' to being 'vermin,' 'insects,' 'plagues,' 'parasites,' 'subhuman' or 'animals'". In this case Ken and LT directly equated their nemeses with deer to be slaughtered and mounted on the wall.
 * Bongolian (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, the domestic terrorist incidents of the past few years have provided ample proof right-wingers joking about this online can have serious consequences-it creates an environment that encourages actual violence. We should not tolerate it under any circumstance.-Flandres (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, you people are unironically taking this as a literal threat of violence and not your typical Ken-esque declaration of some imagined victory? Like the only possible way you can interpret that "essay" is that Conservative and LiberalTears want to turn us into deer, kill us, and then stuff and mount our heads on a wall?-Hastur! (talk)  18:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * These are trophy heads. Trophy heads are a symbol of victory of the hunter over his quarry. Look, I'm not sure how people are reading threats into this. The trophy head as a symbol is displayed after the fact, meaning any implied violence is in the past tense.  18:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Regardless of past, present or future, it's still dehumanization. I won't put up with that behavior. Bongolian (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This to me just sounds like an excuse to block somebody you don't like. You want to coop LT for not being likeable, go ahead.  But be honest about it-Hastur! (talk)  18:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Pfff. Hastur you sound like conservative types to tell people who have been slighted by hate speech to stop over reacting. Granted this isn't hate speech but I don't see anything funny about people insinuating we be beheaded and have our heads mounted on a wall, even if it is in the form of a so called "ironic joke" and if people have a problem with (which isn't unreasonable) I don't believe dismissing it as an excuse to retaliate because of a grudge is effective problem solving. Not cool. Shabi  DOO  18:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Gods... Has CP drunk heavily of some serious far-right fascist/fascist leaning koolaid? Yes, obviously. Would they, if given power, act in a potentially violent and/or genocidal manner? Probably. Is the trophy head thing a threat? No. It's Ken pretending he won a bunch of discussions and LT and others joining in/enabling him. Could someone in the opposing camp go through my illustration of symbology and point out where I'm supposedly wrong if they feel their case is that solid? 20:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally I have no issue with the mounted heads stuff. It's pathetic and lame - just like CP itself. AceModerator 20:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly, let me acknowledge that the threat presented is about as pathetic as those four teenagers who DMed me Bill Nyes gender song on Discord after I banned their racist ass friend from a server for being a racist ass idiot (that is to say, very pathetic to the point of amusing). That being said, here is the issue I have with the CP essay and why I don't quite feel like going to heavy batting for LT:
 * It was made by as a pathetic attempt to dunk on RatWikians and LT seems to have seen enough quality in it to think that adding more editors to it was a good idea. 'nuff said, in that anyone batting for Ken is not likely someone who will have a good venture here.
 * It is fundamentally a hitlist of editors LT hates. Poor form in engagement, arguably construable as harassment. GR had one he posted publicly on accident that one time and he got a ton of shit when it became clear what his endgame was. While I doubt LT has even a fraction of the same type of desiring the removal of wiki editors that GR has/had, it might be best to cinch that stuff before it can go anywhere.
 * LTs general tenure here doesn't really invite a lot of defending. Just about the only reason he managed to survive a few weeks after that essay was edited on CP is because LT posted it on CP. Had he posted it on RationalWiki, he'd have been banned very swiftly as per our harassment policy.
 * That said, because I can't help myself being the devils advocate (and as one says So you saw an argument where one side was the Devil, and you were like "Man, that guy could use an advocate", but fuck it, the guy deserves this defense and I will make it), here it is:
 * LT didn't post this essay on RationalWiki, he posted it on Conservapedia. Conservapedia is not our site, what happens on Conservapedia stays on Conservapedia. We should only action on behavior done on RationalWiki.
 * I obviously can poke easy holes in this argument, especially in the wider context that this argument exists (this is the same argument that shields awful people for behaving nice and promotes status-quo defending of toxic communities for example), but if LT can have one solid defense to not get actioned onto this, it's that one. I would personally argue that LT should not return for the mere fact that LT is not an editor who contributes, but rather someone who thinks he can be a le epic troll to us. He's a lazy version of Ken without any of the flair that at least makes Ken an amusing pest to stomp on and he behaves like nobs without any of the vague displays at sanity that nobs can sometimes show (and that is taking the word sanity very generously). I say we keep his ass gone. 20:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Rockford the Roe (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. 20:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It's certainly true that people perceive threat (and risk) differently. That doesn't mean there's a general obligation to treat all perceptions of threat as equally reasonable or justified. Indeed, there are specific and often unflattering terms for people whose perceptions of threat are completely at odds with the consensus understanding of the things they feel threatened by.

I don't know what'd be a reasonable approximation for the consensus understanding re. a captioned photo like this, but I'm pretty fucking sure you'd get laughed out of any police station or solicitor's office if you tried to take action over it. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (EC)I'm too drunk and tired to search the appropriate coop cases right now, but at least Arisboch was banned for extra wiki doxing (of Mona). As was some motherfucker who doxed David Gerard outside of RationalWiki. As such, there are precedents for extra wiki actions, if they are serious enough, being used as a reason for in wiki sanctions. 20:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Can you guys please unblock LT so he can respond here? Thanks!SemyonMarmeladov (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. --RWRW (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

LT response
I apologize about that edit on that CP page which users here considered to be a death threat. That was a stupid mistake, and I shouldn't have been that idiotic. LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 01:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I previously brought this to your attention twice with 3-day blocks (October 24 and October 31), and as far I as I can tell you said and did nothing to correct it at that time. You have an inability to understand your own bad behavior, or how other people might view your behavior. Bongolian (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I apologize for that. LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 04:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Shit from Ken
If I didn't know about the inaneness that reigns on this wiki and the insanity that rules many men's hearts, I wouldn't believe that a quick and harmless joke of mine was turned into a lengthy web page of discussion.

The discussion on this web page reminds of some Monty Python skits or some of episodes of Faulty Towers.

As much as I hate to say it, once again, I have skewered the fragile and oversized egos of some secular leftists at this wiki. [https://youtu.be/3iOMzJxuREE?t=11 Olé! Olé! Olé!]Groucho (talk) 08:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Piss off Ken. (Note; user blocked in the wake of this.) 08:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ken you are such a sad miserable douchebag. I cannot imagine how intense your personal unhappiness must be when you get your only joy in life by provoking and trolling people you disagree with. There are literally thousands of other things you could do to get fulfilment in life. Shabi  DOO  10:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of what I did in the past as far as CP was designed to help cause the atheist movement to die in the Western World (I created informative content and some humorous content as well). Even Western atheists now are admitting that the atheist movement is dead in the West. Fellow Christians, mission accomplished!


 * While I did sometimes employ humor to advance my aims that certainly wasn't the focus. Humor was just a means to an end.


 * As far as my current activities in life, my editing of CP is now a trickle as I don't see the dead atheist movement resurrecting. And my schedule is filled with very fulfilling things.


 * I do find it hilarious that there are RationalWikians who are still obsessed with harmless jokes I made in the past. I find humorless ideologues to be hilarious.RichardBowman (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Ken sockpuppet, bye Ken sockpuppet! 00:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fun fact: Ken stole my act. Le législateur (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Wow Ken is so powerfully pathetic. Running the same shtick for 12 years without changing his style, learning from his failures or growing as a person. Just the same old crap he has been spouting for years and years now. Always claiming to have won some kind of imaginary battle. AceModerator 01:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, Ken has returned his essay to Conservapedia, but without LT's list of additional Sysops.] It apparently includes an erased history, perhaps at LT's request. It's still obnoxious, uncivil, and in my view incitement to violence. Bongolian (talk) 04:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC) The page moved again, history partially-restored. Bongolian (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Look at the good that has come from all of this: he's demanding sysop accountability from Ken who enticed him into this mess.  nobsHell to the Thief! 19:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The only good things that I saw in that conversation were: Bongolian (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Nobs says:
 * 2) *"I thought the issue was sysop accountability, not free publicity for a troll site. What's more important or a priority? RobSFree Kyle! 23:27, 14 November 2020 (EST)"
 * So does that mean Nobs admits to being a troll?
 * 1) Nobs says that the page incites violence (and is hate speech in some jurisdictions):
 * 2) *"Oh, so you come here and smear the rest of us as inciting violence against critics, walk away and accept no accountability for your actions? RobSFree Kyle! 01:32, 15 November 2020 (EST)"
 * 3) *"You may have committed a crime in countries outside the United States with your posting. You have no idea what you are doing. RobSFree Kyle! 12:11, 15 November 2020 (EST)"
 * 4) *"In the United States you are protected by the First Amendment; in countries outside the United States, you are smuggling in intellectual property that may deemed hate speech, no different than smuggling weapons or dope. RobSFree Kyle! 12:15, 15 November 2020 (EST)"
 * Which makes the case why LT needs mentoring. We don't need another lost generation on our hands. nobsHell to the Thief! 21:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Far as I can remember, we have some sort of established rule that people who've been banned by the mob get to re-register under different handle and return if they are truly doing so as changed people. That's why we don't have checkuser you know. Assholes like 🇰🇪, Mikemikev and Oliver Smith get perma blocked time and time again because when they return as their googolth sock, they behave exactly as they did before getting banned in the first place.
 * I would recommend that you, nobs, will try to groom "mentor" your young protege by the way of Conservapedia or email before encouraging them to return here under a different handle and with hopefully improved behavior. Until then, he can fuck off. You can too, though I'm not yet ready to force you to.  22:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * He didn't do anything to violate the rules on this site. He needs to learn how to interact with others with opposing views. He apologized for his stupidity, and his boldness in standing up to Ken and asking Andy to look into sysop abuse is admirable. You shouldn't allow vindictiveness or an imaginary vendetta to cloud your opinions.  nobsHell to the Thief! 22:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To put it more bluntly than Knight Commander, the grooming of up-and-coming Conservapedian trolls does not fall within the aims and goals of RationalWiki. Bongolian (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How can anyone suggest that Rob is the right person to mentor anybody in how to be a good RationalWiki editor? And I doubt that LT would be able to return under a different name and be anything other than the troll he's been so far. Not anytime soon, anyway. Spud (talk) 04:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, all Rob could teach him is to still be a pain in the ass troll while avoiding being banned. 10:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If users would simply learn to abide by the rules of whatever site they are on there wouldn't be a problem. LT was under the mistaken notion that Rationalwiki was a mobocracy, which he took to mean chaotic or lawless. I explained to him that there are well-established rules, processes, and procedures and if CP expects its users to abide by its rules, Rationalwiki can expect its editors to do the same. Ken was rightfully permabanned for failing to understand this simple concept. In the case of LT, learning to live under authoritarian socialism will be big adjustment for him, and that's why I offered to mentor him.  nobsHell to the Thief! 18:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fuck off Rob. AceModerator 20:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, you think you can do a better job? nobsHell to the Thief! 20:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a shame I wasn't one of those sysops they fantasized about mounting on the wall. What an honor that would've been. -- Goatspeed. 03:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's been six days, and already we have a 75% majority voting for a permaban. Requesting permission to ban LT and archive this shitstorm already. -- Goatspeed. 23:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm no mod. And despite having been a registered lurker since almost 6 years ago, I've not been active until last spring. So I don't really feel I have authority to judge on closing this. Besides Spud, Bongolian and Ace, maybe and  could weigh in. 23:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, unless my mathematical functions are seriously impaired, we have 66.666666667% majority here. Exactly the 2/3 needed, but just barely. 23:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But since last afternoon, nobody's voted "No". -- Goatspeed. 23:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In order to be completely fair, I think we should let this vote run for the maximum number of days allowed. Spud (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, the coop was prematurely archived but is now restored. Let's not archive again until few of the other mods have had a chance to weigh in. 00:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I also let LT out of the premature ban, but he's still not to edit outside of coop until this gets resolved one way or another. 00:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Alas I was too overeager. -- Goatspeed. 01:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We all can get a bit trigger happy at times. I don't think LT manages to cause too much havoc in another week or so, provided he stays confined to the coop. If he gets out, short blocks can be administered as a containment measure. 01:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Note
I get that RW users were mad about the edit, and I apologized. A permaban seems too excessive; the fact of the matter was that I later stood up to Conservative and called for sysop accountability on CP. So what else do I need to say to avoid getting permanently banhammered here? LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 20:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You're being banned for being a poorly-informed, shit-stirring extremist troll, and if anyone's truly laboring under the misapprehension that it's for any other reason, just look at Rob's years' long record of such a staggering level of dishonesty it's really hard to imagine even he takes himself serious and recall that RW failed to ban him after multiple tries. Rob's an actual racist, misogynist, ableist, anti-trans, homophonic liar who's now fanning the flames of violent right wing insurrection and who managed to survive because people like him better than you, LT, which sort of says something. There's nothing else you can do to avoid getting banned. It's going to happen. Nutty Roux (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Rob's days of being a special case as one of RationalWiki's cherished traditions are over. He was banned for almost a month until 3 November for his sexism, racism and transphobia. Longer bans are not out of the question if he repeats that behaviour in the future. Spud (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My prediction is that the narrow 2/3rd majority will either hold or expand, and we'll finally be rid of another atheophobic CP troll. I don't think this prediction would be as bullish as the ones that had Moscow Mitch getting ousted by McGrath. -- Goatspeed. 01:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "fanning the flames of violent right wing insurrection"? Sounds like the that never happened. nobsHell to the Thief! 01:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Time to close this now
The vote has been going on for two weeks now. It's now time to close it. There are 13 votes to permaban Lt and 6 not to. What happens now? Spud (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have two thirds? If so, carry out the sentence. If not, enforce the punishment that won out, if any. 02:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Assuming that perma ban doesn't get two thirds majority then the next vote, month ban, would pass as it only needs a simple majority. --RWRW (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, that might be two thirds. I just worked it out to be 68% in support. Then again, I'm not great at maths. Someone more competent than me should double check. --RWRW (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 19 votes were cast, 2/3 of 19 is 12.66(about), aye had 13 votes. I believe permaban would barely pass.-Flandres (talk) 02:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * All right then. I have permabanned him. It's over. Coop case closed Spud (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Vote
Penalties are consecutive (all penalties will be applied consecutively). Permaban requires 2/3 support.

Yes

 * 1) Bongolian (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Worthless and deeply hateful troll. Should stick to Conservapedia. 19:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) So...anybody want to explain why we should keep LT around?-Flandres (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Scream!! (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Not worth keeping around. 20:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) This shouldn't even be controversial. 17:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) Spud (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 8) Nothing of value will be lost. We don't need yet another frothing Conservapedian atheophobe on here who evidently wants some of our established users dead for not being conservative enough and not believing in god. -- Goatspeed. 21:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 9) Ban everyone forever and shut the site down. It's awful. Nutty Roux (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nutty is wise. AceModerator 00:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Twodots (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Him and Rob. We don't need their toxic dishonesty here. RoundeTheeHorne (talk) 08:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) voting as a counterweight to a dumbfuck AMassiveGay (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) See AMG. 21:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Ariel31459 (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Nothing of value will be lost. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 02:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

No

 * 1) Ridiculous-Hastur! (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Overkill. 21:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) He apologized and took Ken on afterward. nobsHell to the Thief! 23:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Basically what RobSmith said. LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 15:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't get to be on the jury at your own trial. Bongolian (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but people have always been allowed to vote on the coop cases involving themselves, as long as they are eligible in the first place. The CS sertainly don't say anything about them not being allowed to. I'd like the fucker to be banned as much as anyone, but we shouldn't break our own voting standards to do so. 18:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I hate to break it to you, Bongolian, but you don't unilaterally decide RW rules, and I don't see what guideline says I can't vote as long as I have at least 75 edits. LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 18:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's simply batshit to think that a person can sit in judgement of him/herself, particularly when it might be the deciding vote. It is also contrary to the concept in natural law (which partly informs the rule of law), that one may not judge oneself. Bongolian (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, Bongolian said a fuck word. 14:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't buy the arguments re. dehumanisation, and they strike me as seriously motivated reasoning after attempts to spin this as a credible threat of violence fell flat. It's a shit photo gag created by an internet famous creationist idiot, and LT went and made it a bit more shit. Be angry with him all you like, but this isn't even nearly grounds for a permaban. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  15:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Too bad you don't get to unilaterally come up with RW rules out of thin air like that. Your objection is invalid. LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 18:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In fact, you're now behaving almost as bad as when Conservative abuses his sysop powers on CP. LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 18:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That reminds me: since also tried to toss out my vote, he's about as guilty as you are of attempting to subvert RW's mobocratic guidelines and turn it into single-rule authoritarianism. LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 19:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're so butthurt about it, go cry about it to some of the other mods. RWRW and Ace are the only ones who haven't yet voted to outright ban your ass. 19:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not currently against the rules. If you want to change it, petition the mob to do so. 19:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not currently against the rules. If you want to change it, petition the mob to do so. 19:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Goat

 * 1) So is the ineligible vote going to be tossed out or is this obvious fraud going to be certified, too? nobsHell to the Thief! 18:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I tossed it out for now. If the coop drags out for two weeks it gets back in. 18:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Illegitimate

 * 1) Not sure if I get a vote, but I endorse a permaban. Twodots (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your account needs to be at least 3 months old when the coop ends (or you must be able to prove that you've edited before the creation of said account as a BoN or under another account at least 3 months ago) and you need to have at least 75 edits. I think you have the edits necessary, but your account won't be 3 months old until November 27th. So depends how long this is going to go for. 22:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okie dokie. Twodots (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * STALL THE VOTE!! OR IT'S A FRAUD VOTE!! 22:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean if it goes through the full 2 weeks that some folks about to lose have argued for in the past, Twodots would be just old enough to vote. 22:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What, pray tell, can do to save himself? He's apologized and rebuked Ken. What further burden must he bare? nobsHell to the Thief! 23:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * STOP THE STEAL! VOTER FRAUD! -- Goatspeed. 03:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ZARKING STRAGS! VOTE FOR FROODS! 14:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * FR00DZ Twodots (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes

 * 1) In case the full ban doesn't get 2/3 support. 19:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) What KC said.-Flandres (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Bongolian (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)  Shabi  DOO  11:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) AceModerator 23:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) What said. -- Goatspeed.  21:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) Counterweight to Raven. 21:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

No

 * 1) Ridiculous-Hastur! (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Overkill. 20:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Still excessive. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)  15:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes

 * 1) More than enough for any punishment needed in this instance. 20:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Shabi  DOO  21:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 11:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Sufficient for our purposes. Not too much of a fan for permabans. CoryUsar (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Eh, fair enough. LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 15:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Perhaps this will provide needed chastisement. 22:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

No

 * 1) Ridiculous-Hastur! (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) I voted for a pi weeks ban to Rob Smith and the mob agreed to that. LT is significantly worse than nobs is. This would be too small a punishment in comparison and would send wrong message. There should be different levels of punishments for different levels of transgressions. Nobs has made racist, homophobic and transphobic edits, but has never implied desire or intent to act violently towards these targets of his irrational hatred. LT named several RW editors in a gallery of severed (animal) heads. It's both dehumanizing on a level that not even nobs would reach, and also actively threatening violence. Even if it was done as a joke, and even if he's made a semi-apology for it, that should carry harsher punishment than nobs' casual bigotry. 21:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * LT contributed to an "essay" started by Ken. As I already explained above, the symbology does not support the conclusion of an implied threat, but rather an implied "victory". In this instance, Ken believes he defeated the named users, and hence can display the "trophies" of his "victories". 19:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the origin of this. However I disagree with the imagery of the "trophies" being simply about delusional assumption of victory. I do believe the decision to put a gallery of severed animal heads with RW editors names attached is inherently dehumanizing.
 * Yes it was Ken who made that essay (and it might have had some different names for the trophies originally), but LT decided to name some specific RW users. You might have been one of them, I won't check to see if you were, and it's you're prerogative to not be offended by it. But even as I wasn't named in the gallery, I find it extremely offensive and feel that any contribution towards it is a reason for a Joseph McCarthy level of censure at least. And definitely more so than whatever Nobs has received.  00:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * When did atheists become an oppressed identity politics group? nobsHell to the Thief! 18:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * -- Goatspeed. 21:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  15:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Goat

 * I legit can't be arsed to vote in favor or against for anything heavier. 11:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Since when is youth and stupidity for off-site behavior a crime? I will mentor him and advise him on what is acceptable conduct in a civilized society. I hope enough users will give him a second chance for his error which he apologized for. nobsEpstein didn't kill himself Biden didn't win 19:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * On the charitable assumption that at least some of the anger and upset on display here is genuine. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)