Since u/RealWildRanter has permabanned me from c/TrueConspiracies (you be the judge), I answer your question here. Thank you for (apparently) using my links to construct your own narrative and post it in a different forum.

You say I "saw an opportunity to gain power". What I saw was an opportunity to share a problem (lack of mod) and contribute as an equal voice to a solution. I didn't theorize about myself as mod until after Neo theorized about himself as mod. I also affirmed everyone whose name was put forward in the discussion, and withdrew my name when it was first objected to.

You take my giving the contrasting history of c/ChristianAnarchism as evidence of "pattern of ... targeting forums without mods". Well, when I see one, I call people's attention to it, in the same way that others do. You can check Meta archives for the many posts about what should be done with an unmodded (or poorly modded) community. But my illustration shows that I'm okay at reading community consensus; that one had a clear consensus, this one didn't, and I said so both times. Reading the community can be done with objectivity. When I decided to take on a large number of community names, I purposed that all communities would be self-determining, where a consensus contrary to my view would be honored. You can see this pattern in my welcome posts and anytime there is critical mass to have a community question. So my actual established pattern is to advocate neutrally for resolution for communities when an admin solution is needed. The word "targeting" is not usually used for a practice of merely asking questions about community goals.

Neo accused me at the time, after giving me unqualified support in the above link. You follow Neo's characterizations uncritically. See if Neo's complaints align at all with his earlier endorsement of me, from that link:

You see collaboration and you work for it. I cast my vote for you as moderator of c/Conspiracies! To me, you have proven that you left your ego behind and you want to accomplish the goal of the community. That does come with challenges from shills that would want to break you, but I know you're better than me, so I cast my vote firmly towards a person that is able to defend his position and leave his ego - you! You didn't have to prove your worth, but you did it anyway, for the best of this community. I really hope you can help us forward! I hope we can vote for a moderator from this point on, so we can finalize it in a week. Anyone can cast their own votes. It's fine, if you vote for yourself even.

It doesn't sound too off to say u/Thisisnotanexit "wanted the community, not admins, to vote on a mod, but gladly accepted to forgo a community decision and accept mod appointment". Nor is it an issue, given how community decisions were attempted. The fact is (I assumed you were watching at the time and not absent as you count yourself a regular), I first asked the binary of should we have a mod team and got that 4-1 result that was not strong, then I asked the binary of whether we should have a single mod as opposed to a plurality and got such little response that there was no real conclusion. That was after TINAE had admin support, and I didn't want to make a binary question about her so posted a simpler question. The fact that the community couldn't even agree on how to proceed led me to abandon any other questions about moderation and I let things take their course. As TINAE discussed rules in the hopes of being appointed mod, there was some approval of her discussion and a little trolling from those now deported, but there was never a point at which the community either found a consensus to favor admin selecting a mod (it could only come from admin) or found a consensus to do anything else. So eventually admin acted. I've said, anyone could post a new vote today, even a recall vote; but presumably a recall would involve an alternate solution, and nobody's proposed one.

You refer to an accountable church with a standard confession of faith as a cult. I'd appreciate knowing your standard of judgment. I suppose the Nicene Creed, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, and the Apologetics Group Essentials aren't enough to prove to you that one is not in a cult (https://www.scottlively.net/first-century-bible-college)?

So, it's not as simple as Neo makes out, and I answered him in place when he complained. He asked for a roundtable subject once a mod had left, and I (considerately) proposed a roundtable subject and spoke about the mod leaving. He proposed that he could do mod work and I proposed that he could or I could. He endorsed me (as above) and so I went to Meta, continuing to promote him as well and all other names that entered. He turned on me, and I withdrew my name. If someone knows something I, or the forum, could've done better, I listen.

Since u/RealWildRanter has permabanned me from c/TrueConspiracies (you be the judge), I answer your question here. Thank you for (apparently) using my links to construct your own narrative and post it in a different forum.

You say I "saw an opportunity to gain power". What I saw was an opportunity to share a problem (lack of mod) and contribute as an equal voice to a solution. I didn't theorize about myself as mod until after Neo theorized about himself as mod. I also affirmed everyone whose name was put forward in the discussion, and withdrew my name when it was first objected to.

You take my giving the contrasting history of c/ChristianAnarchism as evidence of "pattern of ... targeting forums without mods". Well, when I see one, I call people's attention to it, in the same way that others do. You can check Meta archives for the many posts about what should be done with an unmodded (or poorly modded) community. But my illustration shows that I'm okay at reading community consensus; that one had a clear consensus, this one didn't, and I said so both times. Reading the community can be done with objectivity. When I decided to take on a large number of community names, I purposed that all communities would be self-determining, where a consensus contrary to my view would be honored. You can see this pattern in my welcome posts and anytime there is critical mass to have a community question. So my actual established pattern is to advocate neutrally for resolution for communities when an admin solution is needed. The word "targeting" is not usually used for a practice of merely asking questions about community goals.

Neo accused me at the time, after giving me unqualified support in the above link. You follow Neo's characterizations uncritically. See if Neo's complaints align at all with his earlier endorsement of me, from that link:

You see collaboration and you work for it. I cast my vote for you as moderator of c/Conspiracies! To me, you have proven that you left your ego behind and you want to accomplish the goal of the community. That does come with challenges from shills that would want to break you, but I know you're better than me, so I cast my vote firmly towards a person that is able to defend his position and leave his ego - you! You didn't have to prove your worth, but you did it anyway, for the best of this community. I really hope you can help us forward! I hope we can vote for a moderator from this point on, so we can finalize it in a week. Anyone can cast their own votes. It's fine, if you vote for yourself even.

It doesn't sound too off to say u/Thisisnotanexit "wanted the community, not admins, to vote on a mod, but gladly accepted to forgo a community decision and accept mod appointment". Nor is it an issue, given how community decisions were attempted. The fact is (I assumed you were watching at the time and not absent as you count yourself a regular), I first asked the binary of should we have a mod team and got that 4-1 result that was not strong, then I asked the binary of whether we should have a single mod as opposed to a plurality and got such little response that there was no real conclusion. That was after TINAE had admin support, and I didn't want to make a binary question about her so posted a simpler question. The fact that the community couldn't even agree on how to proceed led me to abandon any other questions about moderation and I let things take their course. As TINAE discussed rules in the hopes of being appointed mod, there was some approval of her discussion and a little trolling from those now deported, but there was never a point at which the community either found a consensus to favor admin selecting a mod (it could only come from admin) or found a consensus to do anything else. So eventually admin acted. I've said, anyone could post a new vote today, even a recall vote; but presumably a recall would involve an alternate solution, and nobody's proposed one.

You refer to an accountable church with a standard confession of faith as a cult. I'd appreciate knowing your standard of judgment. I suppose the Nicene Creed, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, and the Apologetics Group Essentials aren't enough to prove to you that one is not in a cult (https://www.scottlively.net/first-century-bible-college)?

So, it's not as simple as Neo makes out, and I answered him in place when he complained. He asked for a roundtable subject once a mod had left, and I (considerately) proposed a roundtable subject and spoke about the mod leaving. He proposed that he could do mod work and I proposed that he could or I could. He endorsed me (as above) and so I went to Meta, continuing to promote him as well and all other names that entered. He turned on me, and I withdrew my name. If someone knows something I, or the forum, could've done better, I listen.