Hi, everyone. A lot has happened here over the last couple days, and I'll try to explain both what has been happening and what I'm doing to hopefully fix some of the damage that's been done. Hopefully these actions can restore even a fraction of the goodwill that we previously had with the wider Lemmy community.
What's happened
Beaver was recently reinstated as a moderator after finding herself at the center of the recent controversy where Lemmy administrator Rooki unjustly and unilaterally interfered with /c/vegan over a discussion surrounding cat food. I was made a moderator after that same controversy when naeva resigned and went to VeganTheoryClub, an instance defederated from Lemmy.World which is designed to be a haven for discussion of vegan food, activism, art, etc. Things were generally cooling down from that over the last week.
A couple days ago, Beaver began posting to /c/vegan with remarkable frequency (~15 posts/day). Not long after, /u/ccunning contacted me asking about why they had been banned for Rule 5, which is our rule against bad-faith arguments against veganism. ccunning is a member of this community, they might even be vegan, and I've never seen them to be anything but mild-mannered and supportive of veganism here. Because I could find no violation, I assumed it was an accident and unbanned them. Very shortly thereafter, ccunning informed me that they had been banned again, and Beaver messaged me in private stating that ccunning had been banned for downvoting vegan comments but encouraging me not to mention that fact publicly. A post on /c/unpopularopinion soon made it apparent that many people were being banned here for this same reason, and taking a look at the mod log, I saw dozens of bans by Beaver whose only stated reason was "Rule 5".
Beaver continued posting and continued banning, and I messaged them asking if the /c/vegan moderators could have a team-wide discussion and vote concerning this interpretation of Rule 5. I made it clear to them that I felt uncomfortable with their behavior and felt it was doing harm to the community. Beaver ignored this request and simply responded to something else I'd said. 12 hours ago, they stickied a post to the top of /c/vegan daring the admins to interfere, a reference to the previous incident involving Rooki.
What's being done
- Beaver has been removed as a moderator for the community by me with no interference whatsoever from any of the Lemmy.World administrators. I believe her rash, unilateral actions over the last couple of days have done immense damage to the community under the (I believe misguided) pretense that it's effective and disruptive activism. Based on the actions previously summarized, I feel strongly that she cannot presently be trusted to moderate cooperatively, to competently assess what's best for the community, or to be transparent to our users. Although seemingly unlikely at this point, Beaver is encouraged to stay here as a welcome member of the community.
- Anyone who was banned for downvoting will be unbanned effective immediately. This was completely out of line, and to my understanding, the moderation team was not consulted about this rogue interpretation of Rule 5. Because I don't think you can tie specific comments to a ban, this will be something that could happen over a period of hours while I try to pin down the actual justification for each ban, and anyone currently banned is encouraged to appeal. Rule 5 is still in effect as it has always been, so please continue to participate in good faith.
- Individual users will temporarily be limited to creating a certain number of posts per day. I'll have to discuss with the rest of the moderation team if they would like this long-term and if so, what a reasonable limit is, but I think this needs to be done at least right now to cool things off. Beaver's extremely frequent posts have completely drowned out posts made by other users and artificially inflated the activity of this community. The two posts stickied by Beaver will be unstickied, but none of her existing posts will be removed.
I was made a moderator here extremely recently, and so I didn't feel comfortable intervening because I felt I'd be overstepping and betraying trust I'd been given. However, I see widespread distrust of Beaver as a moderator even among vegans (myself included) and feel that this is an emergency that I need to put a stop to.
fwiw, if I had been asked, I'd have said I'm fine with banning people for voting behaviour if that's the sort of place we want to be. Every vegan community does not have to be about the needs of activism, or the needs of non-vegans and potential vegans. It's a valid discussion what this community should be about, but until there is some kind of consensus agreement about that, a lot of it legitimately comes down to individual interpretation and personal preferences. I don't see that any lines have been crossed that needed an intervention and power struggle. This isn't serious world-changing stuff and if someone needs a few days to process a reply, nbd.
I'd like to see Beaver restored to moderator status if they still want it and are interested in reaching a consensus agreement.
She didn't just not process the reply; she actively replied but to something else, showing that she was deliberately ignoring the other portion. You were instated as a moderator two days ago by Beaver – essentially around the same time as she went on her spree, so it's unsurprising that you support it. She also ostensibly instated an alt in the form of Thelemmybud, but I can't say for certain that it's an alt.
Beaver has been destroying this community, and it's going to take months to restore any goodwill we had over just two days of manic, petulant shitposting. I'm not reinstating her, because this community is going to die if she's allowed to continue to abuse her power.
That is jumping to a conclusion. You don't know what her motivations are for not responding. I think we can afford to assume good faith. Because there is nothing of significance at stake here.
You make a diagnosis of mania. I am myself disabled. If you think that this is a mental health issue, I think a compassionate community could approach it from a compassionate point of view. And if you don't think it is a mental health issue and you are just throwing words around, please be careful.
Rather than making assumptions about my relationship with Beaver, I would encourage you to ask me.
Respectfully, JF, I believe it's a perfectly compassionate approach to gently ask someone to pump the brakes on their behavior and, when they escalate even further, to attempt to cool things off by forcibly deescalating. I personally am diagnosed bipolar and have many friends who are as well; this isn't a diagnosis, and the word is often used colloquially.
I think it's entirely valid not to assume good faith given the circumstances. What's at stake here is that Beaver was destroying the community in real time through a nonsensical interpretation of Rule 5, and I think it's perfectly valid to point out that you were instated by Beaver right as she started this posting spree that landed us in this mess in the first place. Thelemmybud was put in place at the same time (they've never posted here, rarely post at all, and have the same specific niche interests as Beaver, leading me to believe it was a LW alt for the fact that federated moderation is jank), and strangely, long-time moderator Eevoltic was removed, although I'm not sure if that was of their own doing since I cannot view who performed that action.
Do you not think there was a point between when you sent a casual private note to when you made a big public attack on Beaver where you should have engaged with your fellow moderators?
@TheTechnician27@lemmy.world this comment deserves a response.
Lots of words are used colloquially that we know we should not. We don't call each other "crazy". As someone with bipolar, you are probably very familiar with people being hypercritical of every change in your mood and labeling things as "manic" for their own reasons. It's not nice.