RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive102

EK
I request EK be stripped of her tech and sysop rights and be placed in Sysoprevoke for abusing her power to promote and block me after I implemented a edit change to the Anarchism article per the talkpage. 13:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to add user:D to the complaint as well for Stripping both myself and Oxyona of Sysop rights. 13:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, you edited through protection against a clear warning not to do that, and I am inclined to believe that neither you or Oxy will come out of this debacle as you entered it. Let's see how it goes. 13:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It was protected for a reason. The protection was supposed to end June 21st and you edited it on June 18th. You are in the wrong there, along with edit warring in Anarchism and threatening to promote me. https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&action=history 13:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * With all due respect Dysk, the vote was over. 13:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * the page was protected to stop u edit warring, you constantly do this and I clearly told u not to. I haven't abused my power by protecting the article or by taking action against you breaching that. Dysk is correct, the vote has not run the full two weeks and thus wasn't over, and the page was still protected. EK (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And yeah Raven, I did. The vote is over, 6 to 2. The section gets removed. 13:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

June 21st. It won't get removed until that date. 13:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You're not the boss, and this isn't Wikipedia. — Oxyaena Harass  13:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I undid GC's edit so that it is now back to what it was (under protection). 13:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Per the guidelines, you aren't a Mod, that isn't your call to make. You abused your toys, you get Cooped. 13:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop harassing her. 13:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No one's harassing anybody, what Em did was a serious abuse of power. — Oxyaena Harass  13:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The page was protected. GC edited it. That's against the rules. You and GC lost your sysop due to breaking the rules. 13:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * EK isn't a Mod, and did not call for a Coop vote as to that use. EK's authority is only that of a Sysop. No one agreed to the arbitary deadline, ergo it is arbitrary and invalid. Ergo, I'm Cooping EK. 13:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

GC you wrote: ''Per the guidelines, you aren't a Mod, that isn't your call to make. You abused your toys, you get Cooped.'' But you fail to recognise that everything I did was a normal sysop action, just like you carry out normal sysop actions per the guidelines. There is substantial evidence of you routinely harrassing people here and using your status to get your version of article content thru. Evidence of some of that will be posted in due course. All I did was as a sysop take actions to defuse an edit war. You escalated as you have done before and that may require community action now. It was your choice to do it. EK (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: The page protection will expire June 26th. 13:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Summation
Essentially what happens is as follows;


 * 1. There was an edit war between GrammarCommie and Godless Raven on the Anarchism article. This wasn't getting anywhere so it was directed to a talk page vote.
 * 2. The vote was started on the 12th, and due to end on the 26th as in RfC convention, discussion and work on draft pages is still ongoing at this time.
 * 3. I protected the page and made it clear anyone circumventing the protection would be sanctioned for edit warring.
 * 4. GrammarCommie edited the page claiming that if I stopped him edit warring I would be cooped for abuse of power, and proceeded after editing it to remove the protection.
 * 5. I blocked GrammarCommie for 3 days, temporarily removing sysop to prevent him undoing it, as is policy here.
 * 6. Oxyaena resysoped GrammerCommie, resulting in GrammarCommie desysoping me in revenge. Then Dysk stepped in to desyop both GrammarCommie and Oxyaena to restore stability.

We are now at the coop. EK (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

 * All I wanted to add is that I restored the page to what it was (under protection) and GC threatened to promote me (for upholding a rule). Also, GC threatened to coop Dysk, too. 13:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You aren't a Mod, that isn't within your purview. Now if a Mod called for that, I'd respect that. But you aren't a Mod. 13:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You aren't a Mod either Raven. Go get a Mod to weigh in. 13:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * GC, every action I took was as a sysop, at no point has anyone but you claimed I'm a mod. EK (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * He's literally saying your not a mod. Féinléiriú (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Then you get a Mod to weigh in, you do not have the authority to take action unilaterally!!!! 13:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * (you're) 13:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * which is relevant to absolutely nothing because I've done nothing that needs to be a mod. I took action as an ordinary sysop to defuse your cringe and annoying edit war and then blocked you for carrying it on. This is legitimate EK (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If there is a major dispute between Users, you go to the Mods to resolve it. FURTHER, NONE OF THAT GIVES YOU THE AUTHORITY TO DE-SYSOP ME WITHOUT A COOP CASE!!!! Now, I propose we halt this conversation until the actual Mods arrive. 13:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

You promoted her. So by that logic, you abused your power? 14:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. That was not a wise decision and I, again, request that we wait for the Mods to chime in. 14:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * any sysop has the authority to temporarily desysop another sysop to enforce a block. Or have you forgotten when 148 blocked you last. EK (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Show me where in the guidelines that is outlined. Further, show me where in the guidelines Sysops are given the power to protect pages and arbitrate disputes as if they were Mods. Show me. 14:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you have protected pages before as a sysop so don't feign ignorance. Also, the answers you seek are literally on your talk page. EK (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * From BoNs and other unpatrolled users yes. That is within a Sysop's purview, to halt vandalism and such. For a dispute between Sysops, Mods are required. 14:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

GC you aren't superior to any other user, I treat every user the same regardless of whether they are a sysop, as it says to in the guidelines. You specifically contravened my warning not to circumvent the page protection, and ignored the vote closing time and ongoing discussions on the talk page and draft area. You proceeded immediately to reignite your petty dispute with Godless Raven and edit war on the page, so I took action by blocking you for a short time for disruption. This is the duty of any site user and the fact that you were a sysop doesn't mean that you can get away with this, nor does it mean that I need a position of authority to enforce the guidelines in the interest of site stability. The fact that you then embarked on an esculation by desysoping me for daring to stop you edit war thru protection, is your choice. I'm not impressed personally. EK (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Show me where in the guidelines you as a sysop are given that authority. If you cannot or will not, I can only conclude that you do not have such authority and are in breach of the community guidelines, hence the Coop. 14:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with EK. 14:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * in the sysop guidelines it clearly says that sysops are allowed to protect pages and/or block users for edit warring. So I obviously have that "authority" not that I consider it to be authority, more just a set of tools to help out with. EK (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have opted to go on a limb and look through our sysop guide, our community standards and our moderation guide. The sysop guide does as far as I can see not talk about the removal of sysop rights. Our moderation guide mentions that issuing permanent removals of user rights should always go through a community vote. The moderation guide is unclear on whether this only applies to sysoprevoke or just to sysops in general. Our community standards however are pretty clear on this. "Promotion" of sysop (the community standards reverse the usual meaning of these words) is only to be done in the event that a user is disruptive or if it's requested. Ideally, the disruption should only be raised through the coop. However, in emergencies, this may be sidestepped for a preventive "promotion". After that however, the "promotion" should still be put up to a vote on either the coop or the noticeboard. Without butting in for either side on the discussion, the main topics that need to be answered here from my perspective are as follows:
 * Was GCs behavior disruptive enough to warrant a "promotion".
 * Was GCs behavior urgent enough to sidestep the coop.
 * Has EK violated the standard for raising the "promotion" in the coop/mod noticeboard.
 * From my perspective, point 1 has been met. GC intentionally edited through a page lock in order to keep edit warring, and when pointed out went for the "if you won't let me do this, I'll coop you/come and drag a mod over, I'd like to see you try" approach. At the same time, EK has, whether intentionally or on accident, not raised GCs "promotion" and subsequent temporary block on the coop or the mod noticeboard. I won't suggest actions on either, this is what our guidelines say. 14:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Small addition -> As far as I can see, the time that the coop was started and the time at which EK "promoted" GC is only split by 5 minutes, and his "demotion" by Oxy is only split by 3 minutes from the starting point of the coop. For this reason, I will personally suggest leniency and say that EK could not reasonably have raised this "promotion" on the coop or noticeboard within a 3 minute timeframe. 15:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Page protection
Our page protections rules don't exactly have teeth. So it doesn't make a ton of sense to me that we go around desysopping people for violating sysop-level protections. The de facto way we've handled this as far as I remember is that you either have the rights to edit a protected page or you don't- the only caveat being if a tech edits a mod-protected page without being mod themselves, that'll really piss people off. Now I'm not saying that Oxyaena and GC don't have their issues but desysopping them was a little drastic. I suggest a warning for EK and D. Beyond that we should keep an eye on the involved parties because they've been the source of a lot of trouble these past weeks-Hastur! (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I desysoped GC as a temporary measure to enforce a block, which Oxy undid and then GC desysoped me in revenge causing Dysk to desysop both GC and Oxy to prevent the wheel war from escalating further. There is precedent for all of this being legitimate. EK (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * While I would agree to some extent on the state of the page protection guidelines, I (again) feel the Mods should weigh in before this case is resolved, since EK has effectively tried to override their authority to act as arbitrators of disputes between users. 14:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * but GC, I was doing arbitration and the edit war had stopped and discussion was going well until you trashed it and engaged in further edit warring, and then wheel warring for no reason. EK (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I think what EK was appropriate, and, since nobody disputed it until now, it seemed appropriate and legitimate. GC arbitrarily broke it for no reason other than revenge. I think promoting GC was the right approach and, if the action by EK and Dysk is considered null and void, then there should be no warning at the very least. 14:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * EK wasn't trying to override their authority. As a sysop she has her own authority, and she decided to flex that.  AFAIK the moderators haven't made any judgements here, they haven't used their authority.-Hastur! (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&action=history there was peace and time for the vote to happen and GC instead just wanted to rush it. Why did GC not mind it for days and then suddenly decide to remove it? It seems childish at best and violating the rules at worst. 14:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

literally all I was trying to do was stop people warring over the page while the talkpage vote was ongoing and people worked on a draft. Then all this happened because GC wants to prove some point of superiority or something like he's allowed to just do whatever he likes unless a mod stops him, when my point is that he's a normal user like everyone else and should respect that. EK (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll ignore Raven's ad hom. He hasn't demonstrated any motive, and thus his claims of me seeking "revenge" (for what?) are unfounded. Per this section I feel that EK did not raise a Coop or bring it to the Mod page, and that further she was acting under this mandate, which is the domain of Mods, not Sysops or Techs. Further, it is my view that the vote had been resolved due to long term inactivity of the talkpage, and that the draft in question was irrelevant to the aformentioned vote.  15:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You were vandalizing the page. She used her powers to stop your actions. She wasn't able to write a coop notice because you didn't even give her 3 minutes to formalize the coop notice. 15:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I was implementing the talkpage consensus, as per the community guidelines. If you wanted to dispute it, you should have taken it to the Mods or talked it out. Please explain, exactly, how that is "vandalism" ( Also, I thought it was whitewashing because everyone who disagrees with you and thinks the section was poorly written crap was a secret Anarchist... ) 15:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Desysopping
Per the community standards, sysop can only be "promoted" back down to regular editor status if they request it, or if they are causing trouble through serious vandalism, troll behaviour, or abuse of sysop abilities such as blocking. Complaints of this kind should be raised at the chicken coop page, and the decision to "promote" the sysop should only be reached after a full discussion. Historically, unilaterally desysopping someone was usually only done as an emergency measure, like if somebody went rogue and were trying to desysop everybody else or went on a vandalism spree, etc. It was also done in the coup that brought us moderators but that's a much longer story-Hastur! (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * She used her emergency powers to stop GC from vandalism; according to Special:Log/rights GC didn't even give her 3 minutes to formalize it in coop. Her actions were fair, imho. 15:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't really think that was an emergency. Had GC been insisting on posting closeups of tubgirl on the page that would make more sense but this was hardly a dire situation.-Hastur! (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hastur! For the sake of clarity, I temporarily promoted GrammarCommie and Oxyaena pending resolution of this flame-war. This was in my view an emergency action as they had both decided to wheel-war with another user (EK) who was arbitrating their dispute with Godless Raven at that time, including the rather out-of-process action taken by GrammarCommie to desysop EK as revenge for a seemingly legitimate block. No moderators are yet online, but I anticipate their rights to be restored once the situation is in hand, unless this Coop results in more drastic community action. 15:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge that Promoting EK was out of line. If the Mods seek to punish me for that it is within their purview. Further, I would to formally apologize to for that action, not to mitigate potential punishment, but to acknowledge my wrongdoing in that act.  15:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ok Yes that's fine I get it you were provoking me out of anger or whatever now if we can calm down a bit and wait for the discussions around the draft to conclude everything will be fine. EK (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

EK's actions were justified
Let's do a reading of the community guidelines. RationalWiki:Community_Standards

EK actions as thus were legitimate according to the rules up until the point that she hasn't yet made a coop notice as demanded by the guidelines. Why? Let's check Special:Log/rights:

In a span of less or around 3 minutes, GC went rouge to punish EK. What is exactly a reasonable time frame to write a coop notice? At the very least 10 minutes, which EK wasn't given due to the actions of GC and [redacted]. GC was disruptive, check |here. 4 peaceful days passed, with no fight until GC broke it for no reason other than violating the status quo for his own benefit, only to later act vengeful against EK. EK has been an upstanding member of this community and GC has not. I rest my case. 15:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal
Slap all involved parties on the wrist. Godless Raven is currently working on a new version of the Anarchism article in draft space. Instead of wheel warring over the original article, we should wait until he presents his draft as an alternative and vote on it. That should resolve this particular issue. A few lessons from all of this -Hastur! (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be heavy-handed when it comes to user rights removal. Even if it was temporary, it causes a lot of unpleasantness.
 * Don't edit war, take it to the talk page and if you have to, vote. If somebody defies the results of the vote, coop them or ask for moderator intervention.
 * Calling for blood is not in any of the involved parties' benefit, because I guarantee you that the 4 users at the center of this conflict (Oxyaena, GrammarCommie, Godless Raven, and EK- I'll give this Dysk fellow a pass for now) are not seen as innocent in the eyes of the community

Yes

 * 1) -Hastur! (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 15:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) if people stop edit warring I'm happy. That's all I wanted ree EK (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) I'll side with EK then. 15:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes. No serious sanctions required at this time but slaps on the wrist all round. Don't unilaterally desysop someone unless it is a genuine wiki emergency (which edit warring is not). When you give other sysops serious blocks, you do so in the knowledge that they can unblock themselves and in the hope that they won't. Spud (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The only thing I did was unblock and resysop GC, . — Oxyaena Harass  16:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, . You've convinced me of your innocence this time. And if I hadn't been eating my dinner while all that was going on, I would have done the same as you did. Spud (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes. Bongolian (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Even me? — Oxyaena Harass  17:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I will take the slap on the wrist with a wet noodle for you. Bongolian (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Sure.  22:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Y'all should realize that user rights manipulation related to an edit war is going to end badly. There are other ways to resolve conflict like this that don't involve escalating an edit war into a sysop tool war. Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

No
GC and [redacted] acted in obvious bad faith. I would request them continue desysoped since their actions were done with clearly malicious intent. EK upheld the protection of a page that nobody disputed for 4 days. EK and Dysk acted correctly. 15:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. How did I act in bad faith? — Oxyaena Harass  15:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Goat

 * How am I involved in this? I haven't done anything. What? 15:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I did in fact bring the original dispute on the anarchism article to a vote, which hasn't been touched by any of the disputing parties for four days. The vote as it stands is 6 for deleting the disputed section, 3 opposed. I feel I followed the rules in that instance, and when it seemed decided I implemented the result of that vote. At no point to my knowledge did anyone agree to a deadline of the 26th of June. Given this information, I feel I was within my rights to delete that section, per the talkpage vote/consensus. 15:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You're still getting slapped on the wrist-Hastur! (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * there was still 2 days left on the protection, and I did promise to block anyone who violated it, and I never break a promise. EK (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't disputing that, merely addressing one of the points you made above. 15:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This conflict is marvelously apropos concerning an article on anarchy. Very artistic really. Like installation art.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I was literally going to say the same thing Ariel. It is almost as though the irony will collapse in on itself and create a black-hole-article that consumes the entire wiki. Shabi  DOO  17:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose that this dispute could be included in the draft article under the title: Wiki Anarchy. A Cautionary Tale.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Oxy
I refuse to vote yes if Oxy is punished for this ordeal, as her actions were arguably minor and in good faith. I was a participant, she was not. 16:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody is getting punished under that proposal. 16:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The proposal names Oxy as a participant when she was in fact a bystander, unlike myself. Even a proposed slap on the wrist for trying to intervene in a way that said they would have done as well strikes me as unjust. I maintain my refusal to vote "yes" as long as Oxy is listed among the participants.  16:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll say again that I am convinced of Oxyaena's innocence on this occasion. And I would have done exactly the same thing. Spud (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with you, except for this tiny little caveat: Oxy is unstable and has caused a lot of unnecessary drama on this wiki lately, and has intentionally or unintentionally shown a complete and utter disregard for standards of conduct here with her continuous dramatic joke LANCBs and obsessive/compulsive behavior. Oxy needs to take a giant step back and avoid stepping into these conflicts for a long time, and concentrate more on improving the wiki. Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And Oxy, that is not intended to throw a brick in your face; I am just offering some friendly advice. Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Notice my use of "this time" and "on this occasion" in reference to Oxyaena here. Because, on the whole, I very much agree with Cosmikdebris' appraisal of her. I have already said that I am opposed to Oxyaena's tech rights being restored now or ever because she has displayed a real lack of maturity this month. And I stand by that statement. But I also strongly feel that Oxyaena did the right thing by unblocking GrammarCommie and giving him back his sysop rights. Spud (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to close
Looks like the majority support no actual punishment. I propose to close this coop. Bongolian (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Seconded, although I'm starting to question whether or not this is gonna happen again (check rights log). 19:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Corvid suggestions

 * Formalize the time frame for a coop notice.
 * Formalize the time frame for a talk page vote.
 * Specify what is considered to be editwarring.
 * Grant amnesty to Dysk and EK since they acted in good faith and according to the guidelines. 15:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Grant amnesty? Nobody's going to get seriously punished here. So that's a bit overly dramatic. Spud (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I only unblocked and resysopped GC. — Oxyaena Harass  16:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This should probably be discussed on the talk page rather than the main page. Bongolian (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Godless Raven
Hi, I'd like to coop Raven for repeat edit warring, harassment, trolling, and deliberate shit-stirring. Raven has made deliberately provocative, inflammatory edits on heated subjects multiple times, refuses to engage and discuss things, and to accept criticisms, and calls all criticisms made of him as "harassment." — Oxyaena Harass  18:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Diffs help when making this case, please post some. 18:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The anarchism talkpage for one, here's a sample diff, and here's another, on his talkpage, for two: — Oxyaena  Harass  18:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll add more later, am busy. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  18:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's one example of his edit warring — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  19:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for potential edit conflict but I'm very wary of Oxy starting cases and committing. I keep feeling there's a sense of impulsivity to this. 19:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Alternative
Seriously suggest promoting Oxy instead for at least a dozen breaches of the site polices in the last few weeks alone... and on a continous basis for many years previously, being heavy on blocks inclusive of circa 20 obvious cases of blocking innocent people without talkpage access, edit-warring with multiple people for long periods of time, etc etc. I could provide more shite but y'all know what's up. 19:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Aye Scream!! (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Those innocent people I subsequently unblocked, most of my edit wars were instigated by other people etc. Fuck off, Scream. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  19:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There's lovely - excellent way to make a point! Scream!! (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Those were months ago, I don't know how many times I have to tell you people that I've improved the blocking problem I once had. That's no longer a problem. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  21:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Raven is also making collaborative more frustrating than it needs to be. 19:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not even counting the Raven related behaviour, this is all against people other than Raven, feel free to significantly increase the misconduct charges if y'all want to include Oxyaena's vendetta with our SocDem Bird. 19:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Make sure to point out how long ago each of them took place, and what happened after they were pointed out to me. Way to create a false narrative, Dysk. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  21:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Other alternative
Promote both Oxy and Raven out of sysop. Raven is a pain to collaborate with (no attempts at de-escalation, passive agressive "I won't engage with this user, but I'll talk shit about them"), whereas Oxy has a literal shedload of policy violations spanning several months and a lot of recent edit warring that have resulted in proposed reforms to our tech appointment proces. Proposing a promotion for both and a few weeks long block for both to cool off. 19:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be a nice first step, at least.-Flandres (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There is zero evidence of Raven misusing the sysop tools, such a change would run counter to the concept of sysop rights and set a dangerous precedent. Furthermore, as Raven has done nothing that requires sysop tools in his actions, it wouldn't even help. 19:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the promotion of Raven is for the duration of getting him to cool off. Blocking a sysop for any duration without promoting them out of it is effectively meaningless since they'll just unblock themselves. 19:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Other people will unblock him you are being clueless. Raven is yet to unblock himself, instead favouring asking others. It will achieve nothing. 19:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I tried to help a newbie that was being bullied by oxy. That's all I did. There is nothing I can do to not be the bad guy because some people just want me gone. To be very clear, I TRIED TO HELP Ary by telling them to avoid oxy. That was my crime. I want nothing to do with oxy and I have made this clear in my talk page. Ffs. 19:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's what the coop is for. I think it's time to let the mob decide on this. 19:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What did Oxy do or say to the new user besides not agreeing with Raven's demotion? I haven't seen any blatant hostility? 19:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Both users engaged in a short edit war. Over the capitalism changes. 19:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. I guess on its own, it can't be too terrible, but given prior record......... 19:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's just part of an increasingly unacceptable tendency to edit-war for both users. 19:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That would still leave EK and Grammarcommie. But I'm definitely against only defanging one side-Hastur! (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Oxyaena particularly seems to be involving herself adversely in any change related to capitalism/communism, even when Raven isn't involved. Sparking over the last few weeks edit wars between Oxy and at least 3 other users. 19:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Fucking Christ, Dysk. All of those edit wars I was involved in involved shitty strawmen edits, and when I attempted to rectify them I get reverted in turn. What you propose does nothing to deal with Raven. I was the one who demoted you to tech, remember? — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  21:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I get it, you edit war with everyone who disagrees with you because you are the de-facto mod and they will give up. Well maybe you should have considered not engaging in such obvious admin abuse when picking on my mates. Because I'm irritated and making it very clear that you are the problem here Oxy. Not anyone else you fight with whom are merely defensive. The sooner you realise that the better. 21:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Point out what mod abuse I've committed, how long ago they took place, and what happened after that. Don't talk to me again, I`m done with this wiki and I feel personally betrayed. Goodbye. Fuck every single one of you, people. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  21:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * See you in a few hours again then. AceModerator 22:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe the time that you desysoped a user out of process twice literally today? Gee I wonder. 22:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Vote on imposing editing restrictions
Since this coop has been going on a while, and it is undesirable to ban at least four generally valuable editors to stop what are in the end only a few petty edit-wars, not all of which involve the same people, I propose that:


 * A 1RR Restriction by placed on all politics and economics related articles, broadly construed.
 * This restriction would prohibit more than one revert per 48 hours, by each person, on any page related to politics and economics.
 * If any editor breaks the restriction, then any other editor is entitled to block them for 3.6 days, mods would be expected to remove sysop tools from people unblocking themselves in contravention of sanctions based on this restriction.
 * Users who are unaware of this restriction should not be sanctioned for a first time offence, merely warned.
 * This restriction expires in one year's time unless extended.

This simply prevents any edit wars on any disputed page by anyone. If people break it, then tough shite they lose their tools. It's an obvious catchall solution to resolve the issues we have right now. As part of this, I propose that nobody is sanctioned based on the problems so far, but are warned that further issues will result in sanctions. 21:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Aye

 * 1) Obviously.  21:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  21:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Better the conflicts move to the talk page-Hastur! (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) (ec) # Go on then but I forsee trouble on the talk pages, Scream!! (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) this is good. EK (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) no. and hiding a vote on policy in the middle of a coop case is poor form AMassiveGay (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena  <font color="Red">Harass  02:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) AMG is right, this really just isn't the place.-Flandres (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, this proposal isn't appropriate here. Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Way too broad a policy. 03:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Too broad, too much work to police. Bongolian (talk) 04:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Dumb idea. AceModerator 05:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) I can see that leading to ridiculous disputes about what is and what is not politics or economics related. Spud (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) "Broadly construed", pretty much every single article is political. Dendlai (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) Féinléiriú (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) For multiple reasons.  But sufficient that this is not on the CS page.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Goat
How long should this last? 21:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The vote says one year, if I read it correctly. 21:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Now I see. Any reason for one year? 21:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * feng shui?-Hastur! (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * But we're RATIONALWiki. 21:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * An arbitrary long period of time to rewrite the relevant articles, without edit wars. 21:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As stated this restriction would apply to all users. Is that what you mean to say?Ariel31459 (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes it applies to everyone because currently there are at least 4 main participants, 3 or more slightly involved participanrs, and many hundreds of people on Discord who may take the place of the existing participants. This solution in one action solves all the edit wars involving anyone. 21:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * many hundreds of people on Discord who may take the place of the existing participants *shivers*-Hastur! (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Around 450 people on Ravens server I believe, and a similar number on Oxyaena's anarchist space. There is no shortage of people to argue over this if they are so inclined. 21:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to put a notice while editing high traffic politics pages? Which pages you think qualify? 21:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, we have to put a notice. Question, can the edit filters enforce this rule?-Hastur! (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's feasible for the edit filter to enforce this on specific pages if necessary. 21:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * All right. I was thinking about the notice when you edit Trump's page that warns against adding the drumf nickname. Also, can you list the affected pages or is it a blanket? 21:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We just need to make sure to give warnings for first time offenses, because otherwise this might be abuse by overzealous sysops-Hastur! (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely. Was going to ask this too. 21:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I added that provision, a good idea. 22:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The restriction is very broad because any page related to anarchism, communism, capitalism etc etc. Could be a potential edit war in the making. This covers all political and economic related articles. 22:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, but I think that's a really broad part of the wiki for a year long restriction. I know the central pages like anarchism itself or political belief article, and so on are restricted, but are we going to lump YouTubers and all political figure, or is it just theory? 22:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * All this restriction does is add teeth to the existing policy against edit warring, I see no problem with it affecting more articles than just the ones currently in dispute. Considering this is a key election time it could come in handy. 22:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not a bad general protocol. Reverting other sysops should have some kind of support. If one is reverted and rejects that reversion, the same person should not revert a second time. If it's a bad edit, a third user will surely revert it. What's the hurry?Ariel31459 (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

there is maybe two users this could apply to only and it would be job done. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is my suspicion too, hence another reason I'm not quite voting. 22:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean if this isn't passed the existing guidance is 2 reverts a day so the existing edit wars are mostly allowed lol. EK (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * } What is a "1RR Restriction"? Is that automatic? Bongolian (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * JargonAriel31459 (talk) 01:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Promote GC
Since GrammarCommie lancb'ed, it's time to remove his sysop. He abused his sysop powers multiple times, harassed me and EK, he editwarred, he promoted me several times, caused chaos, etc., I think it's very simple and visible. 22:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Ja, promote him

 * 1)  22:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) GC has a long history of this and will be back and there will be problems again for sure EK (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) The most abusive sysop in RW history. Nutty Roux (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Wendy Marx (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Nein, don't promote him

 * 1) Raven you've been here for a few weeks and have cooped two users. Would you perhaps consider your own level of antagonism and drama creation before nominating users. Perhaps contribute a little more to the site before denouncing people? Shabi  DOO `
 * 2) Too far reaching. Oxyaena is being placed into sysoprevoke, that's good enough for now.  Besides we don't desysop for LANCBs-Hastur! (talk) 22:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The promotion is not for the lancb, its for the promoting of users without a coop, the harassment, the editwars, the toxicity; things you may have witnessed in real time. 22:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Sigh. 22:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Thoroughly predictable vindictiveness.-Flandres (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Scream!! (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Seems awfully vindictive. Those who live in glass houses, thin ice, etc. Cosmikdebris (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Not now but he should be kept an eye upon. AceModerator 22:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) While his behavior has been frustrating in a number of places, this is excessive and given the source too vindictive. A slap on the wrist and a warning to not edit war would be more helpful I think. 23:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) Warum um Ärger bitten?Ariel31459 (talk) 23:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 8) No. Bongolian (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 9) At this point, Raven, IMHO you need some "corner time" for your belligerent attitude and endless edit wars. Soundwave106 (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 10) Probably moot since he's declared himself LANCB. But GrammatCommie has done a lot more good than bad for this wiki. He does not deserve a serious punishment. And I hope he returns. Spud (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 11) Féinléiriú (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Ziege (Goat)
GC's LANCB'd so it's moot Scream!! (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Apparently that's not his first time he "retired". 22:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey GR, if I were you I'd keep a low profile for a while. Scream!! (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Why? 22:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that you have to ask why really underlines my comment above. Scream!! (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Have I abused my sysop tools? Nope. I also haven't harassed anyone. 22:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You and EK seriously need to call off the harassment accusations. 22:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * its true tho, he even said it on discord in advance. EK (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * its not in the slightest bit true. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * EK: I cannot take your interpretations of Discord discussion at face value after you showed screenshots (this one) and told Raven that I was plotting to throw Raven out when all I did was express low expectations at worst and I clarified with Raven about this through DM. 22:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

For everyone that is giving GC a pass, consider this:
 * Has GC abused his sysop tools? | Yes, he blocked and promoted sysops without a coop nor a valid reason.
 * Has GC harassed certain users? Yes, he has. | Here | and here (he even admits it btw)
 * Has GC editwarred? | Yes, and there is a plethora of evidence for it.

If you agree that those 3 happened, why are you voting against? 22:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Are the 3 points I mentioned true? Please tell me if you can contest the evidence.       Stop giving an obvious problem on the wiki a pass. For the love of reason.  22:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Godless Raven I predict that you aren't going to last very long here. Shabi  DOO  23:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you answer the question, please? 23:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I know we have had our disagreements in the past, Shabidoo, but I will proudly second that comment.-Flandres (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Why can't either of you say yes/no? The evidence is there. Why evade? 23:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict: Most of what happened recently is directly related to a conflict that you've been at the center.
 * No he hasn't. This is him joining with other users to condemn your passive-aggressive response to advice.
 * Yes he has. He shouldn't have edit warred. He has a tendency to revert too many times rather than temporarily letting a revision he doesn't like stand for a bit until a consensus has been reached. But again, see first point. He makes constructive comments such as here and here, and here to justify his edits and has successful at persuasion. These are sometimes laced with ad homeniems, but IMO justified. 23:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

So (1) he has abused his sysop tools (I have not). In (2): "You're being a little shit", "You're moron, you know that right?", while also harassing EK while she repeatedly told him to stop. (3) you agree is true. 23:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We all know you will not actually change your views on this no matter what evidence we present, and that is the main problem with you-in a project based on consensus you are incapable of working with the community long term no matter what they say or do. It is also amusing you accuse me of evasion and not addressing the central argument, considering that is all you could do at the end when our last duel, on the anarchist template talk page, concluded. I warn you not to continue on this path, raven. It does not end well.-Flandres (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Last attempt to convince you to be reasonable. Look at the 3 points I presented and just say yes/no.  23:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Log shows one user rights action that was related to recent conduct on the wiki, not a repeated sustained issue that spells trouble for wiki upkeep.
 * With context, that's a comment made during your responses to my poor warnings. Flaming could've been avoided, but this isn't egregious.
 * Yes. Doesn't mean he should be sysoprevoked. 23:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Your proposed action seems way out of proportion. Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Raven, everytime I log into RW all I see from you is cooping users, asking to be cooped yourself or asking why isn't User A been cooped after abusing User B. My advice to you - shut up and keep your head down. Edit the mainspace, chat in the Saloon, jerk some smack - Just do something else for awhile. AceModerator 23:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly Scream!! (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * (ec)raven -you are a little shit and a moron, though. they would be accurate discriptions. and he was edit warring with you and your dogshit edits that you never once justified with any kind of logic and never once addressed any of the criticisms levelled against. ek did tell him stop. to stop doing exact the same thing as they were doing. her reasoning is just as vapid as your own btw. on top of of all that, hes apparently left out exasperation at yours and hers combined shitty behaviour and you still cant just leave it at that. you are fucking tacky little prick AMassiveGay (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Lovely! Scream!! (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * After that diplomatic balm, I would add that if you simply want to be banned, you can request it and any of the moderators would probably oblige you.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring on Anarcho-syndicalism
Oxy and Raven are at it again. I’m thinking it’s time for a temp ban for both of them. Raven because he appears to be the aggressor here. Fawcett (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The last edit was 3 days ago... 10:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Raven, you’re rapidly losing the goodwill you started with. Yes Oxy was a problem but don’t start thinking that gives you leeway to act like an ass also. AceModerator 10:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The last edit was 3 days ago. By oxy immediately reverting my edits. I didn't even notice (because of the mess of the time) https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Anarcho-syndicalism&action=history 10:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to spend less time complaining about shit. You’re getting fucking tiresome. AceModerator 10:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * wasn't me who started this coop thread, right? Is editing an article that hasn't been touched for 3 days editwarring now? I mean, if it is, I didn't know and I undo it immediately if you wish so. 10:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * i note that you havent at any point taken to the talk page of that article to justify your edit. seems to be a running theme for you. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * that is false, but nonetheless, I made a harmless edit. oxy reverted it (without any reason given, and I didnt even notice, otherwise I wouldve disputed it). 3 days later I revert it back to what i edited it, again. I genuinely didnt think that was considering editwarring. 10:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * is it false though? certainly not the page in question. its edit warring when its not you being accused though isnt it, you hypocrite AMassiveGay (talk) 10:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Have you ever read the civility bit on the guidelines? You know, not attacking people personally? Again, I thought it was okay for me to do it after 3 days of inactivity. If this is considered editwarring, I am sorry and this was an oversight. 10:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Why does this idiot still have sysop and I don't? Your edits were inflammatory and didn't contain anything of substance. Hypocrite. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  10:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Oxy please stop
You’re in sysoprevoke based upon your own behaviour. The best way forward is to expect it and self reflect. Not call it illegitimate bit actually address you attitude. Shorter version stop being a jackass. AceModerator 11:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  14:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * raven, this wouldn't normally be considered edit warring, it's just oxy provoking the situation in the hope of getting something to happen. As for you oxy, you were sysoprevoked for admin abuse that didn't even involve raven. Knock it off and stop calling him an idiot, hypocrite, etc. Your are obviously being spiteful now. EK (talk) 10:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I`m not provoking anything, this is about something that took place three days ago, and and  disagree that what I did counts as sysop abuse, so this is an illegitimate sysoprevoke. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena  <font color="Red">Harass  10:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For Christ’s sake Oxy. It went to vote and you lost. Not a single person votes in your favour. Your sysoprevoke is completely legitimate. Move forward because you’re not going to win arguing backwards. AceModerator 10:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oxy every time you bring up conflict that is already over to try and get your sysop rights back via confusing the situation it becomes more obvious that it was actually a good idea to sysoprevoke you in the first place. Every edit you have made for several weeks has been nothing but drama and edit wars, even Raven has had the sense to make 90% of his edits useful. EK (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you actually think 90% of ravens edits are productive, you have not been reading that many talk pages. The overwhelming majority of users here would disagree with you.-Flandres (talk) 11:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's take a look at the Anarcho-syndicalism page as a starting point, shall we? — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  11:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Flandres I'm talking about mainspace edits, not the talk page so what editors think is irrelevant to actual fact. Oxy that's one article of many and he wasn't even wrong so kindly get a hold of reality for a moment. EK (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * EK, quit moving the goalposts or specify you meant mainspace in the first place. A large amount of ravens edits are on talk pages and considering how much wiki activity takes place there you cannot ignore them when discussing a users conduct. This is fairly obvious stuff...-Flandres (talk) 11:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a collaborative wiki, what editors think is relevant, and why did Raven revert my perfectly legitimate edits? — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  11:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You reverted Raven, it was Ravens edit not yours, stop lying. EK (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to look at the mainspace edits I've made, just check the list of articles on my user page. Most of them were uncontested edits. 11:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Which does not justify you causing flame wars every other day. You are easily a net negative to the wiki in terms of the amount of drama you cause.-Flandres (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

What flame wars? Did you mean edit wars? To my knowledge, I almost never flame. You are free to contradict this, with evidence, please. Nonetheless, did you passively agree that 90% or more of my edits are useful, since most are uncontested? Or is this something you dispute? For the sake of good faith, check User:Godless Raven/harassment to check which people flame at me and who the usual suspects are. Believe me, without Oxy, AMG and GC, this website wouldn't have any issue with me. 11:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The ratio is much less than 90% "productive," and I was saying it does not really matter if you make a few good mainspace edits or not. Also, I suppose I was using flame wars as a synonym for drama, which you engage in all the fucking time on talk pages when you accuse other users of harassment, start edit wars by defending shitty edits and blame a nonexistent far-left mob when you lose in a landslide after a vote, and never change your conduct. Also that last sentence is the most laughable thing you have ever said. Other than EK, every mod and sysop has expressed some form of displeasure with you.-Flandres (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You're free to initiate a coop vote at any time. If you have a grudge with me, then there is nothing I can do. I do my best. If I were you, I wouldn't just attack me constantly, you know what happened to GC and Oxy. If you want to actually talk to me and solve issues, you can hit me up on my talk page. I am not sure if you actually seek consensus and cooperation, but if you do, I give you the benefit of the doubt to talk to me directly so we can handle these issues. 11:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "you know what happened to GC and Oxy" threats already? Oh, and oxy was considered problematic long before you got here and GC left on his own and when you suggested to promote him you got beat into the dirt. I will just shed light on what you do and wait for the community, a majority of which dislikes you, to decide your fate. I would rather a user more prestigious user than me start a vote. I do not have the stress issues that ultimately drove Oxy and GC away, raven, hmhmhm...-Flandres (talk) 11:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also this conflict ended like 3 days ago its only relevant now because Oxy wants her sysop tools back and thinks this is the best way to do it. EK (talk) 11:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't even the one who brought it up. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  14:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Raven: You are not going to get desysopped for edit-warring, unless you start a real war. Take good advice and let this go. Forget about it.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Libel
While we all seem to be here, whats the rationalwiki's stance on libel? AMassiveGay (talk) 10:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * multiple users have libeled Raven by calling him a necrophile and nothing happened to them, so I assume it's allowed. EK (talk) 10:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Er..."multiple?" Sources please.-Flandres (talk) 10:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's use Raven's own criteria here. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  10:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In order to prove that it is libel, you have to prove two things: 1) Are the claims being made factually untrue? (unless they are statements of opinion) 2) Do you know if I knew that these claims were false? You have to prove that I know these were false. 10:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * in my neck of the woods you have to prove your claims are true AMassiveGay (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you live, but is a legal term.

11:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * im in the uk and its a different standard. and your little page of defamation does not prove anything. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't live in the UK (nor the US for that matter, but the website - rationalwiki - is established in NM, USA). But even UK law doesn't agree with you. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26 11:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I know from the Kirkegaard affair that its extremely difficult to prove libel in the UK to the point where its not worth suing in most situations. EK (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh yay the libel experts are telling us about the law. Nutty Roux (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I didn't claim to be an expert on law or anything, I just clarified that libel is a legal term (I) and what the written law demands as evidence (II), both of which AMG didn't seem to care/know about. 11:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * AMG is correct about UK law. You're incorrect about American law. The standard is usually knowing or reckless disregard for the truth. And EK is not even wrong. Between the burden shifting and loser pays attorney's fees, UK is a haven for defamation suits. Nutty Roux (talk) 11:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Since this is largely offtopic, I will just do a collapse-able section:

Source: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26 Requirement of serious harm 1. Serious harm (1) A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant. (2) For the purposes of this section, harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit is not “serious harm” unless it has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss.

Defences 2. Truth (1) It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true. (2) Subsection (3) applies in an action for defamation if the statement complained of conveys two or more distinct imputations. (3) If one or more of the imputations is not shown to be substantially true, the defence under this section does not fail if, having regard to the imputations which are shown to be substantially true, the imputations which are not shown to be substantially true do not seriously harm the claimant's reputation. (4) The common law defence of justification is abolished and, accordingly, section 5 of the Defamation Act 1952 (justification) is repealed.

So yeah, AMG is wrong. All the claims I made are substantiated (check User:Godless Raven/harassment) and they don't fulfill the requirement of causing serious harm. All of this is irrelevant because I don't live in the UK and this website is not based in the US.

Source: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf Defamation (libel is written defamation; slander is oral defamation) is the intentional communication of a falsehood about a person, to someone other than that person, that injures the person’s reputation. The injured person may sue and recover damages under state law, unless state law makes the defamation privileged (for example, a statement made in a judicial, legislative, executive, or administrative proceeding is ordinarily privileged). Being required to pay damages for a defamatory statement restricts one’s freedom of speech; defamation, therefore, constitutes an exception to the First Amendment. The Supreme Court, however, has granted limited First Amendment protection to defamation. The Court has held that public officials and public figures may not recover damages for defamation unless they prove, with “convincing clarity,” that the defamatory statement was made with “‘actual malice’—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” The Court has also held that a private figure who sues a media defendant for defamation may not recover without some showing of fault, although not necessarily of actual malice (unless the relevant state law requires it). However, if a defamatory falsehood involves a matter of public concern, then even a private figure must show actual malice in order to recover presumed damages (i.e., not actual financial damages) or punitive damages.

What I said was in line with this.

12:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * all that is beside the point and you have not (again) attempted to justify your bullshit. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I was wrong about the burden of proof under UK law after the 2013 statute. American law generally prohibits statements made with reckless indifference to the truth, as well as knowing defamation. Nutty Roux (talk) 12:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I love watching new guard people try to argue with Nutty about legal matters... Fawcett (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Raven was correct about the burden of proof. It changed since I last looked at UK law. Defamation law in Illinois courts has been a big part of my work for many years. That said, I'm not really following the point of the substantive dispute and I regret commenting. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about site policy, BLP is what would cover that (aka if the person is alive, make sure that your statements are well sourced and snipe unsourced content). Section 230 protects RW from talkpage chatter if I'm not mistaken. BLP is mostly in that regard applied to avoid the legal shotgun approach when it comes to ratwiki articles (aka, people who sue probably aren't gonna dig through the history to find that The Crow edited something malicious in the mainspace, they'll just target RW). 16:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * whether it is libel or not is beside the point. and godless raven has yet to provide any justification for his bullshit 'harassment' page AMassiveGay (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting, your first comment was:

Yet you just said "whether it is libel or not is beside the point." Whats the point of ANY of this? Are you just here to cause trouble for me in an attempt to coop me over bullshit? It isn't libel, I am writing down any moment where someone attacks me personally while the mods don't do anything about it. You are there because you are a regular problem. 17:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * that is a lie. you are a liar. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Godless Raven's "harassment" page is more "people used mean words towards me" and less "people are systematically attacking me". Like, calling someone an "idiot" isn't fucking harassment, it's a playground insult. If I'd get a coin for every time that someone insulted me on the internet, I'd be a fucking billionaire. Insults mean nothing. The sole example that I feel could be construed as harassing (the quote of a slur), is out of context and the person in question admitted that they didn't know it was a slur in the next reply and wished they'd used idiot instead, which makes the debacle rather stupid. The mere fact that he considers these to be harassment is insulting to the definition of harassment, which I say as someone who has dealt with harassment in the past. Dunno if they're something we can talk about in the coop within regards to Raven, but that's my input. 17:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the issue of libel is moot when both parties are anonymous. Consider the fate of Devin Nunes' Cow. It does not change that fact that it was an ad hominem attack, one of many by Oxy. Bongolian (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

So, if the mods won't act on the personal attacks thrown at me nor do they think AMGs misunderstanding of the legal term libel matters, can we close this? 17:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * delete your bullshit harassment page. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * good luck with that lol  17:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Ha
People say a lot of shit when they can hide behind a computer on some obscure leftist wiki arguing about random bullcrap. I say we take the agitators and put them in a room together to see what happens. HairlessCat (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In these days of social distancing? And it would have to wait until international travel restrictions are lifted. Spud (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Apology
I'd like to apologize for calling Raven a necrophile. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  14:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I accept your apology and I hope we can move forward. (Although the coop isn't for that kind of stuff) 14:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, can we close this coop now? Bongolian (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I raised some issues on the mod noticeboard, but they can easily fit in here as well. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  17:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * id rather it remain open while raven refuses to delete his bullshit harassment page AMassiveGay (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That definitely needs to go. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  17:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder that Crow has one too, Ravens page is a rebuttal to Crow's page. If you want to go on a user page deletion spree it's not going to be the only one that goes. EK (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't you mean YOUR talk page, EK, since you and Raven are One. HairlessCat (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

As long as the page doesn't break any rules, it will stay. 18:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * wrong page. This is about his harassment subpage, not the "rebuttal" to my list of edit disputes that Raven has gotten himself involved in (which well, it's literally a list to pages, when shit started/ended and who was involved.) Nothing wrong with that section as far as I can see (I don't see anything more wrong with it than nobs being able to keep a tally of the amount of times the coop failed to give the boot to him), but if the mob votes to want it gone, that's perfectly valid and I'll abide by that decision. 18:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * for clarification I was referring to both your pages. EK (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Apparently me and EK are the same people. Can't wait for me to be Dysk too. This is getting pathetic. Just because some people think your crusade against me is unfounded doesn't mean they are my meatpuppets or that I am some sort of mastermind manipulating people. I even went out of my way to help Oxy on her talk page, as a gesture of peace and cooperation. If you stop attacking me constantly, I won't have any issues with you. I am here to make the world better, and I really like ratwiki. Stop fighting me because attrition war is not something you will defeat me with. 18:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wot. "Crusade". Dude, it's literally a section of my userpage (and again, if the mob wants it gone, i'll remove it in a snap). I'm not following you around on pages to revert your edits or contesting every single edit you do or whatever, that would be a crusade. Also I never said that you and EK are the same, that's a Strawman of what I've said in other places. I haven't attacked you on the wiki either, so I suggest you lay off. 18:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait, wait, wait, when did people start implying on wiki that raven had sock puppets? Did I miss something?-Flandres (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Your subpage has no problem, it's a simple refutation of Raven's bullshit. Em is pulling a whataboutism. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  18:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Buddy, I meant HairlessCat's comment "Don't you mean YOUR talk page, EK, since you and Raven are One.". I already know what you think and, despite all of my attempts to reach out to you and try to reach friendly relations, you are on your crusade and that's fine. You can keep your page too, I will keep mine in order to have a response to the lies and half-truths written there. 18:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So why did you use this as a response to Crow instead of HairlessCat? Also, considering you still think we are all a far-left anarchist mob whenever we vote down your edits you clearly have no idea how almost any of us actually think.-Flandres (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Crow said something very similar on discord, its all connected. You are only seeing half of what's going on with Crow if you haven't seen their Discord posts. EK (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want an iteration of what I said, I said that Raven is using you as a proxy to have him avoid getting in edit wars. I've seen the pattern, he thought he could strongarm me into it as well. Whenever someone contests or reverts his edits, he mentions several people (including you and for a while he pinged me as well) in that channel he's locked into on the discord. Then look, suddenly you step in to stick up and defend him. Yeah, it's technically not breaking any site rules (that I have found anyway), but I'll still call it a dogshit move. It's happened several times by now. I'm not accusing you of being his alt or Raven being you or whatever, that's fucking stupid. And for anyone poking in, that is what I've seen with most of the disputes that Raven has been involved in (LGM can attest that he does this since he's pinged her a few times as well) and is what I'm calling meatpuppetry. Now can we move on from the sock accusations since they weren't made to begin with? 19:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * it's extremely common to accuse me of being someone's sockpuppet, but since in a previous coop I was accused of being oxys sockpuppet, and now I'm Ravens sockpuppet, doesn't that mean this is twisted? Lmao. EK (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Raven, do the whole wiki a favour and please listen to AMG and drop that harassment page. It is literally the kindling of a multi-day flame-war, breeds bad faith towards you from most of the wiki (who is verging on empty in the patience department) and accomplishes absolutely nothing, unless what you want to accomplish is more conflict and drama. Shabi  DOO  18:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Like I said, there are multiple similar pages that aren't Ravens. EK (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

What a boring mess. Can you close this irrelevant shite? 18:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Let them have their win. We are better than this. I blanked the page, so this irrelevant nonsense is over. 18:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop dude, I already blanked the page, what else do you want? You can keep your page and nobody said you said that she is my sock account, for the second time: I meant Hairless Cat, not you. So stop attacking EK for something I said and that you misread. 19:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't want anything, I just don't want EK to spread half truths about me, so I set the record straight. 19:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you, now let's just try and do something more useful for a while lol. EK (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, then stop attacking her. End it. 19:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * EK:"You are only seeing half of what's going on with Crow if you haven't seen their Discord posts."
 * EK, you're also giving out poor advice and interpretations to Godless Raven on RationalWiki Support Chat chanel (as well as sharing grievances with other users such as The Crow, GrammarCommie, Feinleiru, AMassiveGay, and voracious activist on the RationalWiki Discord channel while they're sharing grievances with Godless Raven and EK) that I'd think is making the problem worse (e.g. told Raven that this comment is a "trick comment" at one point). Again, I will reiterate, you have told Raven on Discord that I, GC, and others were "plotting" to get Raven banned (and I've set the record clear yet no apologies for trying to instill bad faith on my end) and I am suspicious this is part of a reason Raven does not engage in good faith. 19:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I thought we mutually apologized to each other and hashed this out? Why are you saying this? 19:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * - I literally just responded to some vague accusations. I'm totally willing to drop it, but fuck you, I'm not attacking her, I'm setting my own fucking record of things I said straight after EK tried to imply something I didn't say. Don't dish it out if you can't take it was the phrasing if I'm not mistaken. But yeah, let's drop it then and move on like adults. 19:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Godless Raven: We did, Raven. I believe you were misled, however. But I haven't seen EK, the one who misled you in the first place and caused that scuffle, apologize and she's still continuing to try to install bad faith in her interpretations of Discord posts of frustrated users. I've already told her earlier that I do not trust her interpretations of Discord posts. 19:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I am very much willing to put arms down. Want examples? I pinged the irish fella to discuss the Social Democracy page, I accepted Oxy's apology and went to her talk page to remove the protection on her profile, I reached out to you (LGM) to find commonground and interests, I did the very same with The Crow only to be treated like trash later, AMG was complaining about the harassment page and I blanked it, I apologized to Duce and RWRW for my rash responses before. If you want peace, just ask me for peace. There is literally nothing I can do to satisfy any of you, it seems. Stop fighting me and I don't have any reasons to fight any of you. I just want to edit shit, and I am not being allowed for reasons that I don't understand. 19:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Dude she is 14 and her native language isn't english - neither is mine. Try to treat us like fucking humans for once, please. Misunderstandings happen. But okay, let's drop this. 19:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You keep pleading for peace and saying you want it, but your demeanor tends to say the opposite. A lot of the community is mad at you and you are widely seen as not helping your own case. This is just advice-perhaps you should consult the community about this to come across as more sincere.-Flandres (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We already decided to drop it. So drop it. 19:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. 19:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

So I assume we can archive this? 19:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, I think that it is too much to ask that the moderators police every talk page, as it seems that you are implying, Godless Raven. Moderators are a last resort (as is the coop) for resolving conflict. There is currently no defined punishment for ad hominem attacks on fellow editors. It is frowned upon as are all fallacious argument styles. Preferably, one would first point out an ad hominem attack against oneself to the offender and tell them to cease. If that doesn't work, ask a moderator for intervention. Bongolian (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, archive (tips hat) but I do expect more discussion on general conduct in the future. 19:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I’m a sock of Bongolian. 19:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)