RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive130

UShistoryanalyzer
What is there to say? Obvious troll, wastes everyones time, mainspace edits are primarily reverting BON vandalism, anything else usually gets reverted for being cranky wingnut bullshit. Has opened several ATIM and coop cases to the point that the ones left standing pretty much cover an archive page on ATIM in the past while. I'm opening this coop case mostly because I'm kinda done with everyone giving him excuses to whine about rights abuses. Let's make something stick. I'm of the mind of a permanent boot, but if you disagree with that, feel free to tell me why. Remember that no votes start until 24 hours after the coop has started, you all probably know the drill. Techpriest (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And in order to pre-empt squeealing from him like a little pig, I've permanently blocked him in advance. Consider it use of the emergency button of "I am not putting up with this shit", which means that no matter what after 24 hours there will be a block vote. Techpriest (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * He's definitely not a troll. He's an idiot right-wing kid who wants to relitigate the Southern strategy as a prelude to claiming victory re. the Dems having always been the rEaL rAcIsTs!! I'm also pretty sure people are supposed to be allowed to comment on their own coop case, some extraordinary circumstance notwithstanding. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyone who wouldn't characterise them as a troll has lost all meaning of what a troll is. Blatant, obvious, troublemaking, useless fucking troll. Sick of their shit. Shabi  DOO  19:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure of the functional difference HBC. In both cases he's here with a constant series of bad faith arguing about subjects that don't need relitigation that we literally already have debunked in our pages. And fair enough, I thought I'd save everyone the headache but if y'all want him to comment, then sure. Techpriest (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We should at least block him for Pi-weeks. Even though the overwhelming majority of the community (that has expressed any opinion) is pretty damn fed up with his behavior, multiple blocks/mod warnings/penalty votes have failed to change his conduct. It's sad, but we have to start considering higher intensity options.-Flandres (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe a pi month ban? probably enough to get our point across. 19:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Y'all are still assuming too much good faith on him. He won't change. If you're scared of a perma, may I suggest a 3.14 year block or something like that until the kid finishes high school and maybe has grown up a little bit. Techpriest (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, we did give scrooge that punishment for the same basic behvaior...so that seems pretty reasonable.-Flandres (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I could probably get behind pi weeks. He genuinely believes the guff he spouts, though. There are likely turds in pools which can look forward to a warmer welcome than him around here, but he's arguing in good (stupid) faith. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * How about if he doesn't stop that behavior within those months, then we can permaban. 20:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd vote for anything up to a ban. When I stick my neck out to defend someone like I did the last time the prospect of banning this idiot came up, I expect them to return the favor by making at least a bare minimum effort to not be a cunt. Otherwise, as in this case, I end up looking like an ass and people resent me. Now I'm pissed and out of patience. 19:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] Either pi weeks or pi months I support. Because pi days failed, I don't think its worth it. As I mentioned at the ATIM case, we could try a ban on ATIMs, at this point the only thing that could work besides a ban from the site is a permanent ban from ATIM, unless explicity stated otherwise. Gale5050 (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I am unaware of anyone who has been preemptively prevented from defending themselves in the Coop. There have been some rare cases of people given the opportunity to defend themselves and then prevented from further editing in the coop because of coop abuse (e.g., shitposting and not mounting a defense). UShistoryanalyzer should at least be given an initial chance to defend himself. Bongolian (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * While I think this one is not a troll functionally speaking, he does have genuine right wing beliefs; however he engages in constant bad faith, ignores advice repeatedly on how to change (and thus earn respect), doubles down when people lose patience and start yelling, and then tries to one-up others that understandably treat this user with disrespect. I don't think he's here to elicit responses per traditional definition of a troll but he's too troublesome to keep around, mostly due to being unable to listen to advice and demonstrating inadequte competency needed to maintain the mission of the wiki (e.g. uncritically sharing sources considered low quality by media analysis aggregates is counter to our mission). He's too much trouble to keep, takes time away from the community, is kinda like a disease. He's been here for months, he's tolerated for way too long. 20:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Bongo beat me to the unblock.
 * I'd prefer we have his insults and screeds here on record before we execute punish him. We can always revert/block again if he goes cray-cray.  I'll probably vote for a vacation block, but we'll see.  20:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec) I'm pretty sure he is here to cause drama and thus get attention (a common problem with children) first and foremost. I can't fault people for wanting to ban him for good and I am pretty sure we will ban him relatively soon...but you know how this goes. You have to give a few unearned chances which you know in advance they will screw up before permabanning passes.-Flandres (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

How about confining any Southern strategy / similar guff to the talk pages of the essays he's created? Then anyone who really wants to can have at it with him over there, and the Bar becomes slightly less dumb on average. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the attempt at compromise but this does make the guy feel a little high maintenance for little benefit (that is, it's unprecedented to confine people to a really specific space and I'm not super on board on that, but kind of reminds me of that paranoid Brian guy a few years ago, if I recall the name). I'm morbidly interested to see what stupid crap he comes up with, what next garbage source he really wants to show us, but on the other hand, I don't want essay space be catered to these klutzy divas like him. 20:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to Bryan See/"Phobosgate?"-Flandres (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "high maintenance for little benefit" accurately describes quite a few members on this site. 20:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Whilst my amusement that the bar will not be terrible on average is sky-high, I guess a few weeks or months wouldn't be a bad idea if you're not willing to perma (although I question somewhat why you wouldn't, but sure, I'm willing to bide my patience if y'all want to try the nice route first). I would definetly at least recommend him to have a block from posting in the Saloon in that scenario. That would at least stop giving his shitty takes pointless oxygen for editors who generally already have far too much time on their hands to argue with each other. It should just be a general block, USH doesn't really post in the bar outside of spilling crappy "the democrats are the real racists" takes, I don't think we'd lose any valuable discussion by not airing that out in the most trafficed place by frequent editors. Techpriest (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Meh, I'm fine with a short vacation unless he makes a very large bribe persuasive argument. In other news, is "Corona" a good rando-sig for me?  20:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Flandres, yeah I was. I was thinking of this case when it came to a very specific sanction. Is it worth it to do another one for UShissyfit? 21:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

It strikes me that the wiki lacks a decent mechanism for dealing with non-offensive monomanias that become deeply irritating through sheer weight of repetition. There's an obvious tension between the invitation to debate on the main page and people's understandable desire to tell someone to shut up and fuck off after the umpteenth iteration of an unsuccessful argument.

Essay space has always served in part as means of allowing people their say re. stuff that would never pass muster in an article. It doesn't seem too much of a stretch to use that facility to corral this kind of behaviour as well. I don't have any firm idea how many chances someone should get, but the basic idea is that, beyond a certain point, it's fuck off and write an essay, and anyone who wants to discuss this further with you will see you on the talk page. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've treated essay space as more as blog posts, personal opinions, but something that can potentially have some interesting views in them. I've used one essay to advance an unpopular opinion/controversial on police I can't really put in Saloon Bar and such. I don't have much faith that the guy will restrain himself from cobbling nonsense after nonsense, using the space as a blog (like how Conservapedia was appropriated as a blog). Heck, he already started a series consisting of three crappy essays, which is more essays than I've created. I don't think he'll abuse essay space but I'm not sure if he'll be any less annoying. 23:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, essayspace is, for lack of a better term, out of the way. We are kinda obligated to deal with his crap in mainspace, and putting it on the saloon, where everyone will see it, maximizes his chance to be annoying to as many users as possible, perpetuating the cycle of drama. If he just makes crappy essays and almost nobody cares enough to respond to him the "right-wing keyboard warrior" aspect of his problems will cease to be relevant.-Flandres (talk) 23:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've called USHistoryanalyzer a troll in the past and I stand by that. The difference between him and the common or garden troll is that he has a political purpose. His main purpose in coming here, however, was to cause drama and upset, rather than to convince anyone that Democrats are all secret racists today because some were openly racist 60 years ago. His recent attempts at wiki-lawyering and concern trolling  (protesting about me taking autopatrolled status away from a self-confessed Biblical literalist and Young Earth Creationist, protesting that me permabanning a Holocaust denier on sight, collapsing their Bar post and changing its title to "Nazi shit" somehow amounts to "coddling Holocaust deniers") just show what his game really is. We've put up with him for long enough. Give him the boot.


 * I will also point out that Unclescrooge's 3.14 month ban is about to expire. I'm pretty sure that by December the unreformed Unclescrooge will be permabaned. But so that we don't have to deal with both of those troublemakers at the same time, I think at the least a 3.14 month for USHistoryanalyzer is called for now. Spud (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * (1) Scrooge's block is set to expire on September 10. (2) Scrooge may actually (a) reform or (b) go away. (3) A 3.14 month block of USHA would expire in late November. (4) Scrooge tried, but failed. But yes I do agree besides that.Gale5050 (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Spud, you're a lying dipshit. The subject of my protest was you merely collapsing Holocaust denial as GrammarCommie removed my fine Saloon bar post. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a blatant violation of their civility parole. Shabi  DOO  14:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "wAh bOo hOO HoO tHeY vIolAteD ciVilItY pArOlE aNd saID sOmeThInG mEaN!!!!!" Seriously Shabidoo, your inability to focus on the main point is glaring. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Is the above not evidence enough for anyone? Why isn't a mod blocking them for civility parole violation? Shabi  DOO  20:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Civility parole needs to be reworked in all honesty. Anyway UShipster is irritated we collapsed a neo Nazi topic and left it up there while others just deleted his posts. Therefore we're more sympathetic to Nazis than him. That's the thought process. It's a hell of a conclusion but he's ready to stick with that slam dunk and accuse us all of being Nazis. 00:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We have a debate namespace that's been gathering dust for more or less the past decade... Techpriest (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with fuck off and start a debate as an alternative mechanism. As for people's determination to frame this as dealing with a "troll", then I'm fine with that, too, just as long as everyone's clear they're using the term to mean nothing more than "stuff I dislike and find irritating".


 * There's nothing inherently wrong with I don't like this as an argument for change, and every chance of success if enough people share your opinion. If there's hypocrisy that can be shown in staking out that position, then fucking own it: subjective dislikes are often irrational and inconsistent. Just please - for the sweet, undying love of the little baby Jesus - stop trying to dress it up as some noble, high-minded effort to protect the wiki from measurable harm. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think people agree what a troll is but some resort to saying this is a troll because the distinction between troll and a person debating in bad faith is splitting hairs. I also believe the user takes time from everyone, which is a kind of negative for a wiki (reminds me of an Aesop fable where mosquitoes should be destroyed no matter how minor the injury and irrtation it is) and you also agree to put a restraint on him so he doesn't clutter Saloon Bar, so clearly something he's doing is wrong and needs an answer. It's a matter of harm assessment though, and I think that's something we disagree on. 15:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

UShistoryanalyzer statement
I did nothing deserving of a block or vandal bin. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You violated the civility parole quite a few times with your feuds in the saloon bar and the talkpages. 20:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You could stop using bad sources for your arguments. You know, little stuff to be just a little less annoying.  20:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Credible sources don't exist for his historical arguments. It seems pointless to pretend that if he looks a bit harder, he'll find something that'll persuade the audience here. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "oH nOz wE mUsT bAn uShiT beCuZ wE dOn'T lIkE hIs sOuRCeS" UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Congrats, kid. You really are a complete fucking moron. I salute your taking ownership of the UShit label, though. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's sad, as in RationalWiki:Chicken_coop/Archive129, he was spared. This time, I doubt it. He failed to take on this olive branch.Gale5050 (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * He's an idiot. He needs to go to Wikipedia, learn citation policies, and then maybe come back. Dutchbag (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Nah. The leadership of Wikipedia are complete dutchbags who I don't care for. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Gee, I wonder why??? Maybe they didn't like your unironic Breitbart and Daily Mail links either? 22:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * USHA - it is 'douchebag' and, probably, 'whom' (depending upon which variety of English you use). Anna Livia (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. 😃 UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've edited wikipedia before (and also on many more IPs). It's tough, mainly due to the competence is required issue, but I'd still encourage USHA to edit there and gain editing experience. I'm going to attempt to get unblocked there in September. Gale5050 (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We should permaban him. Just end that son of a bitch! &mdash; Unsigned, by: SixtyNine / talk / contribs


 * Look I am very sorry for what I did. I promise to be better in the future and check my sources. Thank you everyone for changing me for the better! Happy days! UShistoryanalyzer (talk)


 * Wow, USHA! I always believe in second chances, what do you guys think? 69  Annoy  00:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You were the same person since February. You could've changed since last Chicken Coop of you and also the countless prior advice. Why now? 00:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, there have been many, many chances for UShistoryanalyzer. The second chance was long ago. Also, the idea of UShistoryanalyzer 'practicing' on WP before returning here is ridiculous. He has an incapacity to understand NPV. Bongolian (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a shame he had a change of heart at the last minute tho. 69  Annoy  01:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears to be impersonation, check Special:Diff/2353394 carefully. ~Gale5050 (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC) What are you doing?-Flandres (talk) 01:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Then there's this. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

, as I indicated in my block of you, you would do well to not impersonate others' signatures. It is contrary to RationalWiki:Community Standards. Bongolian (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry guys. I am retiring from Rational Wiki soon so bye! 69  Annoy  02:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

To reset this. If anything, I'm happy to have even the most seemingly bull-headed conservative type out here. Would you rather someone like this make these same points on Conservapedia, where they'll get nothing but validation, or here, where they'll get some pushback? Consider it the argument, and I'm willing to bet he has more robes in his closet than you do in yours; certainly he has more than me, and he's a Maryland resident while I regularly have to visit  (for unrelated reasons, just in case you were scared). So what, it's exhausting; even if you're right it's hard to change someone's mind, and I'm sure you know that hard isn't a synonym of impossible. Exposure is far more likely to help than hurt, and this site seems to be exposure. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 04:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyone who spends a short time on a website, and then trashes it as a toxic hellhole day after day, yet still sticks around provoking people and trashing the place...is an unrepentant, unreformable, useless, troublemaking, sad troll. How do some people not get this? USHistoryanalyser, in the future, you will look back at your behaviour at this age and be super terribly embarrassed by it. Shabi  DOO  08:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * we dont get visitors from too far to right coming over in good faith who argue and debate in good faith. we dont get racists visiting in good faith. we dont get anyone from trump's fanbase visiting in good faith. why would they? we get trolls. there is never any good faith. they come with their guards up to shove bullshit in our faces, to poke us and annoy us in the hope we lose our shit, for the fun of it. we are not exposing them to anything they are not already aware of. they know what this site is all about - thats why they come trolling
 * you want dialogue with such people, it wont happen here or any other place online with a focus on political or social issues. you get a dialogue someplace neutral where you can interact with people away from there pals and they arent gonna feel outnumbered
 * if people came here in good faith, regardless of their politics, we would respond in kind. if they came in good faith they would not wind up in the coop. they never come in good faith. AMassiveGay (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't been here—in an active capacity—for any considerable amount of time, so apologies if I'm speaking out of place as a recent de-lurker. I agree with the above. What RW gets instead of good faith arguments are people like someone challenging evolutionists to prove the Big Bang(!) to be real to name a recent example some already excoriated over on Saloon Bar just this past day/night. RW gets people like those, or Rob, or those other "harmless, amusing trolls." That's not inviting new viewpoints, and in any case: what kind of impression would you be left with as a sysop of a non-autopatrolled user that goes around telling you you're all wrong with pretty shitty sources, then claiming victimhood for the perceived censorship, and finally opportunistically attaching themselves to fights where users they don't like are getting dunked on by other users they've never really interacted with? Kntai (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * To some extent 'that is the nature of RW': there is a certain amount of 'enlighten my ignorance (on these various views, why X is wrong etc' and similar)', those of us who have reasonably rational views (and a few 'offbeat or pet theories) feel confident enough about them not to need to discuss them here or actually discuss them in other forums, and one of the main functions of RW is to serve as the interface between these '98% reasonable' and those who are confident about their varyingly unreasonable/unprovable/downright wrong views (and who do not understand why we do not cleave to rather than cleave from them).Anna Livia (talk) 10:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You're not speaking out of place at all. You've described the situation here perfectly. Spud (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly the space for debating some of these viewpoints in good faith is pretty narrow. How much position is allowed for racists, Trump supporters, climate change deniers, conspiracy ntheoirsts, etc before they manuever in bs? It's not much. A lot of these viewpoints can be held in earnest but also require bad faith to spread in the first place. Unless I'm not making sense. I can't be sure of the nature of the site rather than also issues with some aspects of ideology especially when they're so frequently not borne out by studies and rely on manipulative rhetoric instead. 14:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The slippery slope is a common logical fallacy (and a variant on the argument from adverse consequences) that asks for a prohibition or curtailment on something based on a series of undesirable results. This usually involves many steps, but only two are required. Per RationalWiki. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it depends on the conspiracy theory, and what we are defining as "racist" these days. 15:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't hurt you to humble up a little bit, too, epistemic humility cuts both ways. Don't mistake what I said above for agreeing with you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 16:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Our 2 options
Are to either ban them at ATiM or fully block them. I’m ok with either. Gale5050 (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The non-block sanctions (civility parole, topic ban) clearly haven’t worked, there’s no need for more. Banning someone from using ATiM is a terrible idea. Christopher (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Another idea I had, spawned from my former sanctions at Uncyclopedia, is to refuse him to challenge administrators anywhere or complain. That's not my first go to, and it revokes your personal constitutional rights, but #1 RW is a private website and #2 we are getting desperate.Gale5050 (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't really need to be exploring increasingly convoluted options when it's clear they won't work and permabanning would suffice. Plutocow (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Who ATiM? Nothing jumps out on a websearch. Anna Livia (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's an abbreviation for RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation.-Flandres (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I want him gone from the Bar at least. It's nothing but a headache and a source of drama to keep him there. He will not change from discussions there, he will not listen and all it does is frustrate editors leading to rights abuses he gets to whine about. I'm somewhat ambivalent on completely giving him the boot (HBC has a point that we need a strategy for editors like this who do nothing but frustrate people in arguments, we get these losers every once in a while and I'd rather find a solution to that; more aggressive pushing people like him to the debate space is one I'm totally for). I'll probably vote for it this time but I also don't see that passing. I do think a 3-month block will give the site some reprieve since Scrooge is about to get unblocked fairly soon and if Scrooge hasn't lost interest, that will be another individual to deal with so I strongly encourage everyone to vote for that if you don't have the foresight that USH will just keep being a problem like I do. Techpriest (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Want me out of the Saloon bar? Just rid my topic ban, it's that simple pal! UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Just chuck him back in the bin. Problem solved with minimal effort. 19:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Bin and/or block are the simplest solutions. Bongolian (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm already binned. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Bin has been tried. It didn't work GC. 21:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem with the bin is, as said in Special:Diff/2329979 but for a different user, that all the bin does is reduce frequency of bad behavior, not stop it.--Gale5050 (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Vote on UShistoryanalyser
It’s been 24 hours. Per CS, votes to block/ban require a two thirds majority.

Yea

 * 1) I support a short vay-cay. 19:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Minimum Shabi  DOO  20:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) In case harsher measures don't pass. Gale5050 (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  01:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) 主要行事月 (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) Why bother? No such vote is required for non-sysops. Bongolian (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) I did nothing wrong. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Bongolian. Techpriest (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Ignore, mock, or refute. Don't be childish and just block whatever you don't like. This isn't a safe space nor was it ever meant to be-Hastur! (talk)  14:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Goat

 * 1) Isn't it "3.6 days" (314159 seconds, aka 100,000π seconds), not π days? Gale5050 (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a baker's pie. We round up because you are such a great customer!  06:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Yea

 * 1) Or even a longer vay-cay. 19:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) At minimum. We've tried pretty much everything at a lower intensity at this point and he STILL can't even admit he has done something wrong.-Flandres (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) For dumb coops / ATIMs and generally working his ticket. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Grief highly overshadows minimal usefulness Shabi  DOO  20:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) This is the lower end exactly of what needs to happen. Their recent editing has been very disruptive and they show no sign ofimprovement.Gale5050 (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC) (updated 22:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC) in light of oppose of 3.14 month block)
 * 7) Expecting indef ban along the line but not seeing indef ban passing at the moment. 21:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 8) Trying everyone's patience and tiresome. Techpriest (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 9) Should just be permanent, but whatever. Plutocow (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 10) I reckon this is about where he'd be anyway if his civility thing were actually getting enforced. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒  talk  01:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 05:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 14:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Leucippus Salva veritate 15:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) 主要行事月 (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) I did nothing wrong. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Ignore, mock, or refute. Don't be childish and just block whatever you don't like. This isn't a safe space nor was it ever meant to be-Hastur! (talk)  14:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Yea

 * 1) MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) I'd like to do this. If he gets blocked for Pi-months and doesn't change his behavior by the time he gets back, it will become...very difficult to defend him from the remaining alternative.-Flandres (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) It will give him more time to get some edumacation at skool. Bongolian (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) I'd take this in place of a permaban, but I wouldn't be happy about it. 20:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) I'm sure the moment this block is over they will be back unrepentant and doing stupid shit  Shabi  DOO  20:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) While a smidge excessive, there isn't a great in-betweener option and I think he could use the time off. I hope he can come back fresh in December. Gale5050 (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) Worked well enough for one previous troll. If they come back and continue being disruptive then go. 20:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 8) I remember him getting a lot more annoying around when summer holidays would’ve started, he’ll be back in school by the time this expires. Christopher (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 9) See pi weeks, also Scrooge is getting unbanned next month, if he becomes active along with USH my brain begins to become a pretzel in dealing with all the stupidity. Techpriest (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 10) Should just be permanent, but in case that doesn't pass, this will kick the can down the road for three months. Plutocow (talk) 00:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 11) If that doesn't work, then I will not object to a permaban. 01:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 12) Here we are again, burning away energy on this. It's not like this came out of the blue. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 12:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 13) Per Christopher. It's probably the best for everyone, including USHistorystoryanalyzer. See what we did to/for Oxyaena only a couple of weeks ago. GeeJayK (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 14) One or the other. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 15) Seems enough to reduce drama for now; a repeat performance or worse would make me support a permaban. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 14:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Since it's obvious that permaban won't pass this time, I'm going to have to vote for the next best option. I know it's only delaying the inevitable. We're going to go through all of this again soon after his bock expires. But it will have to do for now. Spud (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the general sentiments, I added another alternative, to provide another option for those looking for a compromise between this and the permaban which won't pass. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That option was shut down quickly. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) In case permaban fails. 21:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) 主要行事月 (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) I did nothing wrong. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Excessive Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Excessive. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒  talk  01:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Ignore, mock, or refute. Don't be childish and just block whatever you don't like. This isn't a safe space nor was it ever meant to be-Hastur! (talk)  14:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 5)  Leucippus Salva veritate 15:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Screw my abstain earlier. I saw many comments saying USHA didn’t do anything blockworthy. I still support a pi week block for disruption. But we can’t go around banning people for pi months for his beliefs. Yes, he needs to execute it better. But he seems to be somewhat learning. My original idea was just a ban at ATIM and Saloon bar, which was my original proposal. He will be back in school in pi weeks as the summer is rapidly ending. Mine is one of the last to start - September 9 - which is still not even in pi weeks! (It’s gonna start in ~19 days). That’s not 22 and while “back to school” won’t fully hit them, I think real life will catch up with them and they’re trolling will stop. Both him and Scrooge. Honeslty with all the homework going on, I doubt they will be permabanned as both will have better things to do.~ Andrew5 mobile (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Goat

 * Abstaining. Others have made good points for and against. I still support pi weeks tho. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Yea

 * 1) This arsehole has repeatedly proven beyond any reasonable doubt that they are incapable of changing and that they'll use any attempt at sanctions or calling them out as an excuse to double down on their behavior. This is the only solution at this point. Plutocow (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) If I ran this place, this troll would have been permanently banned a long time ago. This troll does nothing, except being disruptive, and an over all bad-faith actor. If we were on Wikipedia he would have been permanently banned a long time ago for conduct issues, if not then because he would not actually be capable of helping out the wiki in any capacity. I do not understand why a poll like this is needed just to kick complete utter morons who fail at basic sourcing like USHystoryAnalyzer. Moreover, why are the only trolls who deserve that sort of punishment the ones who go as far as to dox another editor? Regardless, I hope he is gone, not a tenth 'second chance', nothing, just rid this wiki of him and his unconstructive edits and trollish behavior. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair! Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem with citing WP:CIR here is - (1) WIkipedia bans are indefinite, but can be appealed. Here it is not so. (2) He may gain competence - particuarly on a 3 month break.Gale5050 (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Permabans can be appealed here. Only blocks can't 06:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know this won't pass. I just want to say "I told you so" when we inevitably permaban him after his fifth-or-so coop sometime around July 2022.-Flandres (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Like I've said various times before, this is the result of me being burned after the first time I defended him in a coop. 20:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) The most sensible option. You are living in a fantasy if you think they won't eventually be permabanned. Why don't we just avoid the pointless drama between now and then?  Shabi  DOO  20:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) From what I've read about this guy and his history, he clearly needs a permaban. Adam Warlock (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Can we please just stop pretending that this guy is anything other than another UT whose behavior isn't going to improve anytime soon? 23:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) The only real solution to the problem. Spud (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) All these various (and generally supported) proposed sanctions (limit to essay space, bar from Saloon Bar) on top of existing sanctions (civility parole (which is not a well designed sanction to be fair), topic ban on US history, vandal bin) as well as lengthy disputes on dealing with this user is all beating around the bush for a user buried in problems, for months, and won't change, not in years anyway. Ideologically opposed or not, the user generates drama. The endgame is drama. Oxyaene and GR were also drama generators in spite of their more closely aligned idoelogy, even after they can't abuse sysop powers. The focus on "ideological purity" is missing the point. Don't think too hard about feeling unfair to this guy; otherwise you end up consuming yourself. Let it go, as that song goes. This is ultimately my preferred result but I'm certainly also satisfied with pi weeks or pi months, and I'm still open (though doubtful) to even limiting posts to essay and debate space. 00:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) Agree with LGM, "endgame is drama" = troll. This is how it will end even if it's in a later coop. Bongolian (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 8) Enough. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 12:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 9) One or the other. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 10) I just want some peace and quiet. And I just don’t see the benefit of keeping this person around. Idc about the semantics of troll/not troll. Fact is they’re constantly arguing in bad faith, sayin shit that’s uncalled for at best (and sometimes actually pretty fucked up), refusing to listen to other ppl, and just making everyone get feisty. Ideological differences or no, I don’t see how keepin them around is good for Usha or for anyone else. These pointless fights are not enjoyable or productive or fun for anyone. Also, if Usha is indeed a high schooler, then I sure wish someone had prevented me from making a prick of myself online when I was their age. Can we please, not have this exact same coop 3 more times. thanks. 14:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 11) 主要行事月 (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) I almost always vote against perma for anything other than hate speech or threats. Just me.  19:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) I did nothing wrong. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What a coincidence: "Enrique Tarrio [also] did nothing wrong!" Bongolian (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't do this. See, Bongolian only voted for the permaban after you called him a troll. I don't know if your post was the reason but that's not the way to go.GeeJayK (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Ridiculous Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Too harsh. While there has been massive disruption from the user, it's not enough to justify them never returning. Just wait till December and see if USHA improves, if not, we can perma him then. Gale5050 (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  01:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) I'm still undecided on the length, but I'm fairly against permabans barring extenuating circumstances. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 03:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) What Gale and Nutty said. 05:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) He's not a troll. He's an ideological extremist you disagree with. The only question is whether your invitation to debate expires when you get bored and how you deal with ideologically impure guests who won't leave. Your community standards don't address that. Nutty Roux (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Total nonsense. He is a troll by definition. There is currently a newcomer in the saloon who is ideologically a creationist who is disagreeing with people in a civil way without the assholtry. You all seem to keep forgetting that in the community standards it says: "engage in sensible debate" and to avoid resorting to personal attacks. Something this blatant troll has done multiple times. It also tells users not to spread their disagreement to multiple pages which is yet another community standard that this troll has broken. One primary goal of a troll is to disrupt (usually through incivility) and this troll excels at this. OUR community standards address elements of civility AND sensible debate AND sitewide assholtry. Shabi  DOO  11:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ignore him. This guy is an annoyance who shits up the place whenever he can just because he was wrongfully banned once and then unbanned. Look at his contributions, all he does is complain about RationalWiki and he seems to willfully take the defense of trolls and bad-faith actors just to dunk on the site on occasions such as this one. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Nutty is correct though. The problem is not trolling, but immaturity and ignorance. 11:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, Shabi, that user was already blocked, vandal binned, had all his edits on the saloon collapsed (even one that was quite frendly about a "church") and had his mom gratuitously insulted. He made one edit on the main space. My suggestion to some people here is, remove CD from our guidelines if you guys think groupthinking is the way to go. GeeJayK (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That insult was directed to ADefenceOfChristianity, not to USHA. 12:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was talking about them. Shabi mentioned ADefenceOfChristianityabove, my point is that he wasn't really well-received. GeeJayK (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems that people here have forgotten what the mission statement of this site is. I have a low viewpoint of someone who comes in demanding that they bow down to their supposed Young Earth Creationism viewpoint a (viewpoint that is blatantly pseudoscientific and fundamentalist (mission statement 1 and 3!)), and whines to the editors by name immediately when blocked. They also happen to be pretty MediaWiki competent right from the get go, so not a n00b. They immediately head to the Salon, not the most obvious place on the site for a n00b, but an obvious one for those who have hung around this place for a while. Seems to be a shit-stirrer even if it is a "friendly" one. Maybe this account is doing it for the yucks and giggles, and there's a small chance this is genuine dumb. But the likelihood of constructive edits is extremely low either way.
 * Calling the rejection of this sort of bullshit as "groupthink"? Well, I don't know what to think about that statement, this site is finished I guess if that is the case (like Nutty Roux for some reason desires), we're now free to explore shit that there's lots of hard scientific evidence against I guess. Might as well work on articles on how you can cure COVID-19 by drinking bleach next. At any rate, we had that problem with USHA's early edits, some of the people around here seemed to not realize how bullshitty they were. Y'all need to get familiar with the warped world of Lost Cause Southern society apologists, for a start (warning: you'll never look at  in the same way again once you do). Luckily his "The Democrats are the real racists!" shit was too obvious in the end. Not ban-worthy either, but then he began his shit where he deserves any ban he gets (edit wars, bullshit coop cases, etc.)
 * As for one other aspect USHA thingy, there seems to be some sort of uncomfortable relationship with a already banned Conservapedia user on this site. Sock? Compadre? Who knows. Not every sock is as obvious as Ken. It doesn't matter, of course, if USHA was on good behavior no one would care. Hell if USHA stuck to just whining about Conservapedia no one would care too much. But he didn't. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but my point is, there's no reason to block, vandal bin and harshly insult a user that only made one edit on the main space before they can even make their point. Again, according to RationalWiki:Sysops: "Even those who oppose mainstream RW ideas are — and should be — given sysop, as we encourage constructive dialogue" (no, I don't think we should even autopatroll ADefenceOfChristianityabove, let alone givem them sysop rights), but if the user is actually trying to debate there's no reason to do our best to mistreat them just to make them go away. As Techpriest said, so far he proved he's an idiot. not a troll. He might be one, but there's no need to resort to slippery slope here. GeeJayK (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Just want to point out, those insults to the users mom are completely unacceptable in any scenario. ADOC is a dumb fuck, sure, but you don't have to sink to insults used by 8 year olds on XBL. I'm not angry, just disappointed. Techpriest (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What's XBL? 14:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Xbox Live. The original place where kids called each other racial slurs in COD. -- Techpriest (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, there are absolutely solid reasons to ban and block on "one mainspace edit". Some of these are obvious, like blatant calls for violence or obnoxious Nazi-level racism. This is not such an obvious case. But I can easily see people judging this to be a bad faith on the get go due to a confrontational attitude on the Salon and a shitposting style (starting three topics in the Bar in succession). It's really the Salon shit that stinks to me. Some of RW's most obnoxious trolls after all never edited mainspace one bit, but spent time polluting the Salon again and again after all. I did not block or vandal bin, but I did troll collapse a couple topics for that reason, and understood why other editors did block and bin. As noted on the Sysop page, "Blocking is not to censor alternate opinions, but to prevent disorder." Shitposting on the Salon counts as disorderly to me, it's pretty easy to make a judgement call that this user might continue to add topic after topic in the Bar with its YEC shitposts and end up being a headache. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm not objecting to ADOCs timeout block myself. I do think it's a bit on the long end, but that's YMMV. The bin just was overstepping boundaries because of the specific stuff the bin exists for. This is the kinda user that I wouldn't mind aggressively redirecting to the debate namespace instead of engaging with. -- Techpriest (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If indeed the user was sanctioned after one single post, that is the kind of stuff that NuttyRoux and a few other users are concerned about. Of course, Nutty's objections DO NOT apply to USHistoryanalzer because he usually does NOT argue in good faith, shit stirs, insults, engages in non-sensible debate and ignores replies (and takes shit to other pages). The new user just had ideas that many here don't have, and an automatic reaction to bin the user or collapse their nonsense is a truly unwise way to deal with them. You can redirect them somewhere else, patiently respond, mock/ridicule etc. If they elevate to stupidity, trolling or non-sensible debate (including ignoring what people say and continuously posting the same garbage sources and the same arguments that have been discredited) then it is a different story. Does rationalwiki want an environment where someone we don't agree with and is presenting a point of view in a non agressive or stupid way is immediately blocked/collapsed/punished? Shabi  DOO  21:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Nutty Roux can safely fuck off as he hates this site, who knows why it still hangs around. I will repeat, if you feel that allowing shitposting is an awesome way to run a site, go to the shit corners of the Internet where that is still allowed, and which frankly are shit places these days. I certainly would support Techpriest's idea of directing this person to essay space and debate space though. Seems right if this user actually returns (since it was a troll most likely, doubtful). I doubt a YEC would respond to a pure atheist standpoint but I'd be happy to direct the user, if sincere, to resources where Christians have reconciled Genesis and science and see what they think.
 * YEC is not even wrong. It is a fictional story. There is nothing to debate or not debate. It is what it is, and you either like the story or not, and you can place a stupid amount of importance on it being exactly right and infallible for whatever reason or not. Supporting the fuzzy cloud of information supported by the scientific method (which is not absolute and is always in progress) is only one alternative. You can also can counter with another creation story from one of the many religions on Earth. Or you can also even go with those many Christians that *gasp!* disagree with the Genesis literal. (Myself, my viewpoint is that all this is completely wrong, and Peter Gabriel Genesis is Best Genesis. Sorry Phil Collins, you're a talented dude (I've heard your Brand X drumming), but man, it's hard to believe the folks that made Supper's Ready pooted out a trite tune like I Can't Dance.)
 * It is also well known that there are lots of trolls on the Internet that like to poke at things and stir drama. In fact, shitposting and trolling is the point of a lot of people on the Internet. To "win", stir up drama, and post in judicious detail about some shit detail that they think is just wrong or funny or wrong and funny for some reason. I view a lot of the recent revival of the ridiculous (things like flat earth etc.) as similar trollish reactionary anti-modernity (an attitude that's been around long before the term "troll" was invented, but seems to have increased in these times). The point is to more or less to push buttons against a changing society that they don't understand and don't want to understand. Plus, they get attention for being ridiculous, which in some cases seems like what some of these people want.
 * Perhaps your point would be more valid if we knew that the Internet was a sincere place where 90% of the people weren't lobbying balls of poo at each other just to get that serotonin rush of being uppity righteous or something, but sadly, this is not the case. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * —cosmikdebris talk stalk 02:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No. I am sorry Pangalactic, but if you define a single post in the saloon which isn't aggressive or blatant trolling as "shitposting" then you have an extremely low bar for what merits blocking, reverting, collapsing or any other form of attack. "Rationally" responding to a couple initial inquiries whch are not blatant trolling, is NOT asking much of rationalwikians. I think this is a valid concern of some users (though again I stress this does NOT apply to USHA). I do not care that a Christian website would hop all over an atheist's post and ban them. This is actually one case where "I thought this was rationalwiki" applies. Responding to an ignorant or misguided and potentially harmless visitor is an entirely reasonable first attempt to draw a user to the rational side. Shabi  DOO  12:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Earlier, USHA only had his diverging view of US history and disagreements over that, without creating that much drama. Later, USHA's petty drama coop and ATiM cases seem like trolling and part of a newer provocation-oriented style similar to that of Unclescrooge. USHA seemed to understand how Unclescrooge trolled people, thereafter he changed style in the same direction. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Just saying, we were unable to swiftly deal with even ideologically aligned folk, including GR. This is the same song and dance and people I think are stalling the inevitable for the same reasons of just being more willing to stomach drama than a permaban (understandable, the idea of permanency is a bit of untreaded territory), even if in the long run and on hindsight permaban is sensible. 15:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Nutty is right. Christopher (talk) 11:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) At first I didn't want to vote on this coop, but Nutty's post convinced me otherwise. GeeJayK (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  Leucippus Salva veritate 13:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Ignore, mock, or refute. Don't be childish and just block whatever you don't like. This isn't a safe space nor was it ever meant to be-Hastur! (talk)  14:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Perhaps it's because I know he's a kid, but I cannot in good conscience sanction such action in this instance. 15:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly him being a kid is all the more reason for a perma, since he clearly lacks the maturity necessary to be a productive member of the community. Plus, with our lack of checkuser, he could come back in a few years if he is more mature. Plutocow (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh thanks for all the love.
 * This post was clearly referring to UShit. Are you admitting to being a sock of him? Plutocow (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously not. I just like being called a "dumb fuck". But then again fools can't understand the glory of God.

Goat

 * Abstaining for now. HBC has somewhat made me doubtful of this option. Techpriest (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Yea

 * 1) Well it was my proposal so yeah, I'm going to vote in favor of it. 19:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) I will support. If USHA wants to prove his worth by contributing something of substance, maybe we will reconsider. Because right now, he's picking fights while providing nothing.  19:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Only if he somehow survives and does not get perma-banned from the results of the other options. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) This would totally work for me. I'd be happy to unbin if agreement could be reached re. keeping his revisionist enthusiasms confined to debate or essay space. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Per CU and HBC. Techpriest (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Largely ignoring would be a good policy for USHA. His disruptive patterns are extremely regular, and I for one have no trouble not engaging.  His disruption is largely outside of mainspace, where it can do no real or lasting damage.  Drama ensues when others respond, and I frankly no longer understand why anybody does; fool me once, etc.  Even collapsing is a response, as evidenced by the fact that it can be warred over. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  01:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) Per Serene. Leucippus Salva veritate 13:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 8) Better than nothing, I guess. Not what I’d choose. 14:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * for some reason I can’t get strikethrough tags to work, so imagine I struck this through. Don’t wanna support if it means the bans don’t work. 14:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no reason why this would overrule the bans. From my perspective it's a separate vote. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Bongolian (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) I did nothing wrong. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) If you guys choose not to ban for a good amount of time, then you deserve to experience the full intensity of this user's annoyingness. 20:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And that possibly will be passed along to moderators. 21:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Spite voting helps nobody and you'll be on the receiving end of it as well. Spare us some of the pain. Techpriest (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) No. The vandal bin doesn't work. All it does is give them a chance to periodically be uncivil and shit all over the wiki.  Shabi  DOO  20:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Per DuceMoosolini and Shabidoo. Gale5050 (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Ignore has hardly ever worked for these users. 20:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn’t work because people don’t actually ignore them. Recent ATiM archives contain a lot of meaningless bickering that would’ve quickly stopped if there wasn’t anyone replying. Christopher (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ideally yeah we should starve the guy attention. Look at his essays. Not much comment despite being kinda rubbish. Saloon Bar and All Things in Moderation are more difficult to ignore (particularly the latter when a mod is needed to respond and quickly end discussion) and also, I'm pretty sure a lot of people in RationalWiki don't really like bs, but not blatant bs, going in Bar without being challenged.  22:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) I am perfectly okay with leaving him in the bin...but the age of "just ignore them" is over. It's an outdated view not suited to the modern community.-Flandres (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I take offense at the assumption that I would be so blithe and naive. I did not say, "just ignore" I said "largely ignore". This would mean that, should he become too much of a nuisance in the future, or go completely beyond the pale, there would in fact be due precedent for an appropriate response at that time. 21:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * But he's kinda at that point of being too much of a nuisance. IMO. 22:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Ignore, mock, or refute. Don't be childish and just block whatever you don't like. This isn't a safe space nor was it ever meant to be-Hastur! (talk)  14:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) 主要行事月 (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Goat

 * 1) This is interesting. What would happen if a ban option passes, but this also gets 2/3? Which gets senority? Gale5050 (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the harsher punishments get pushed through, however, I heard from someone here that the bans were cumulative. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It would make sense to treat every yay vote as a vote against a permaban. Votes aren’t cumulative, that’s a rule someone made up that was applied in one or two coops without many people noticing. Longest block with a 2/3 majority is put into effect. Christopher (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Even Superstar, who also voted to permaban? If people want to vote nay they will just vote nay.-Flandres (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think superstar just saw it as a vote to bin him, except he’s already binned. You’re right, easier to just treat this as a symbolic vote with some discussion going on. Christopher (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I voted for the bin and the non-permanent options, so if the permanent option fails, he will, at the very least, be banned for a long period of time. My main pick, as is for many other editors here, the permaban option. If the permaban option had 2/3 votes it would pass over the 3 months ban any way, so nobody is voting against permabanning him by voting on the 3 months ban option. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not the place but can someone ban Carter Bonham Helena as an impersonation account? Posting here for a quick response.Gale5050 (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Nvm already blocked.Gale5050 (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's not permanent, then the bin applies after the block expires. 22:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) How would this be enforced if it passes? Would we ban people who don't ignore UShit? Plutocow (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's just a vote to affirm the vandal bin? -- Techpriest (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Prevent USH from participating in the Saloon
He's just there to spew bile and annoy people. Criteria are simple: USH is not allowed to edit Saloon bar. If he does, anyone is free to sidestep usual talkpage policy and remove his comments as well as give him a 9 hour block for violating the criteria. Repeated offenses may lead to further cases. Techpriest (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Yay

 * 1) Techpriest (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) But only on the condition that bans are 3.6 days, not 9 hours. Gale5050 (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Might as well, though after a certain point we'd be banning him from so much of the site that not permaing him would be pointless. Plutocow (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) I'm finished with half measures. 00:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Bongolian (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) We don’t need more ridiculous custom sanctions. They don’t work. Ban him or don’t ban him. Christopher (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Ignore, mock, or refute. Don't be childish and just block whatever you don't like. This isn't a safe space nor was it ever meant to be-Hastur! (talk)  14:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Goat

 * If he is to be banned for a long time (pi months), would he be banned after that expires? As in is this an indefinite sanction?Gale5050 (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * My thinking was more along the lines of applying specific, narrow topic bans to his Bar contributions as & when necessary. Southern strategy / Dixiecrat guff for starters. It's at least logically possible he could share his thoughts on, say, the clusterfuck in Kabul without laying waste to the more delicate flowers in the user base. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem from what I can tell is that in general the only thing USH ever does is dixiecratposting, hence why I just decided to cut out the middleman instead of giving him some sort of way to vaguely dodge a topic ban. Techpriest (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * the only thing USH ever does is dixiecratposting apparently a bannable offense...-Hastur! (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hastur, before you continue commenting on this and keep making yourself look like a fool, read our article on PRATT. Every other topic he starts is about the same dixiecrat stuff we have refuted on the wiki and have refuted to him again and again or is whining about people who give him sanctions when they get fed up with him. The people voting against a permablock here aren't doing it because he's a poor boy who doesn't do anything wrong, they're only doing it because they don't think we need that measure because his stupidity has the tiniest sliver of good faith in that he's still a high schooler who might just get a random bout of mental maturity, but that's an extremely flimsy kind of good faith. Almost everyone agrees that he's a disruptive arse except for he and you, the sole disagreement is about the question on how long he should stay gone and what other sanctions might apply. -- Techpriest (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Wrong, Techpriest. It is I who refuted nonsense in the RW mainspace. See my essays. 🙂 UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, "Techpriest," but being wrong is not a bannable offense-Hastur! (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's more than just "being wrong". Shitposting and intentionally causing drama (eg multiple bullshit coops, edit wars, and a hugely confrontational attitude), as USHA has done, have gotten accounts of all ilks in trouble in the past, including permabans. If it was just Dixiecrat crapola, the topic ban would have been enough. It isn't. Now, it does seem like there are a few trolls on this site that seem to have a high tolerance for shitposting and trolling, and seem to get annoyed at other users getting annoyed at shitposters. Frankly, I think they should go to places where such behavior is welcome, such as Encyclopedia Dramatica (when the drama llama dingleberries that run that server can actually keep it running), 4Chan, and the like. Opinions are one thing, but shitposting is another. In my opinion the communities where shitposting trolls run rampant are, in the end, pretty awful places to visit. You may disagree, well, you're free to decamp there if you want. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Yay

 * Longer than the greatly supported π months block, while short of the permaban which people are now very evenly split on. I decided to add this since it seems to cover a middle-ground otherwise not voted on, which it seems like a significant portion of people could gravitate towards. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) wut 17:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) A lot of people have already voted and won’t bother checking the coop again. It almost feels dishonest to keep adding sanctions in response to how the votes are turning out. The block time itself is excessive and too fiddly. Christopher (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Let's not be ridiculous by splitting hairs.
 * 4) Nah don't veer in to butterfly ballot. 19:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Too harsh. And btw, as declared here, this is an alt of Andrew5, meaning I am eligible). I think even 3.14 months is a stretch, let alone 9.42! Andrew5 mobile (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * For anyone else confused by this vote, it is User:Gale5050. Bongolian (talk) 23:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct, I got a rename and then set up a mobile account. I won’t have access to a computer until 8/25. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) I strongly disapprove of adding another option after voting has already started. Spud (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) No. -- Techpriest (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Okay, too late to add another option. I abandon the proposal with this, and sorry for making it a waste of time. I quickly mentioned the same idea in the earlier Unclescrooge case before that vote, but then just left it (as I was then still too new to vote). I considered adding or mentioning it earlier for this vote, given similar sentiments, but second-guessed the usefulness of the idea. Then I second-guessed the second-guessing later, but I didn't get the context right. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 05:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No hard feelings! 06:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Goat

 * I made this middle-ground option one of quarters of a year instead of years, because I have the impression that years feel close to a permaban, especially as the permabanned have a chance of getting the ban appealed after a few years anyway. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I won't even dignify this with a neigh. Tacking this on to the ongoing vote is just a waste of bandwidth and processing power-Hastur! (talk)  20:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Tally-up
To summarize:


 * pi days = 6 - 4 (yea = 60%, fails)
 * pi weeks = 14 - 2 (yea = 87.5%, passes)
 * pi months = 18 - 6 (yea = 75%, passes)
 * permaban = 14 - 14 (yea = 50%, fails)
 * vandal bin = 9 - 8 (passes)
 * saloon ban = 3 - 4 (fails)
 * pi... quarters of a year? = 0-8 (yea = 0%, fails)

USH will be banned for pi months and be permanently left in the vandal bin. If you have any objections, speak up or forever hold your peace. You may now kiss the bride. (Also anyone reading this can now archive this coop). -- Techpriest (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * He is banned for pi months AND pi weeks. I have altered his block to add the 22/7 weeks to his sentence.  Feel free to fix the exact number of minutes.  16:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Woah, hold up, I don't think this was a vote for a cumulative sentence. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, on Unclescrooge the pi weeks option also passed and it wasn‘t cumulative. 16:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And minimum time is still not over yet. 16:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Quite sure that it's always been a cumulative block, and UncleScrooge's block was a mistake. If someone wants to change the block though, go ahead.  17:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I remember saying that the pi weeks block for him was a underrated option because I thought they were cumulative, but someone said they weren't. I think it was Chris or Monet. Should we extend UncleScrooge block then? GeeJayK (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually remember a discussion here. That option of cumulative was not discussed. It is kind of confusing, as it doesn't say. I really don't give a fuck as long as both either have pi months or pi months plus pi weeks, but it needs to be even. Gale5050 (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s never been cumulative. Christopher (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So are you adjusting the block length, or no? Gale5050 (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I did so within a minute of Gale pinging me. It’s very obvious that the vandal bin vote wasn’t actually about whether or not USHA should be in the vandal bin, it was about whether or not we should ignore him (so not really a vote at all). Not that it matters as he was already binned, but I don’t think we would’ve removed him if the vote didn’t “pass”. Christopher (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Cumulative has never been the case and is iirc an invention from Bongolian to satisfy the "what do we do with different block lengths passing at the same time" situation. Personally I'm more inclined to say "strongest passes" (ie. if 3 days fails but 3 weeks passes, 3 weeks is what happens). If you don't think a punishment is appropriate you should against it. -- Techpriest (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * for the record, my new name is Andrew5. I changed it a week ago. Gale5050 (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC) I agree with strongest passes. If somebody votes for 3 weeks but thinks 3 months is too long, their 3 week vote shouldn't be counted toward a cumulative 3 month + 3 week sanction, since they would obviously oppose it.  Doing things cumulatively creates an incentive to vote against measures you think are reasonable, to prevent their being combined with measures you think are excessive. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  17:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It also incentivizes countervoting against measures because you think they're too weak, something which has happened multiple times (by yours truly included). -- Techpriest (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As an example - me and HBC both voted for pi weeks but against pi months. Pi months passed, but if it was combined with pi weeks I would have to oppose it out of fear of a nearly 4 month block. I think our blocking guidelines are already quite scrict, no need to make it even worse. Gale5050 (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Permission to alter our official rules so that this mess doesn't happen in the future? I.e., "For blocks, only the longest sentence shall pass" 17:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That would probably have to be disccused on the CS talk page, not here. Gale5050 (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Added that to CS talk page... 18:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Is this ready to be archived? Gale5050 (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you kiss the bride? -- Techpriest (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm being serious. Is this long coop (currently ~90 kB) ready to be archived, or should it be kept out for longer for more discussion. I'm fine with either, but if we can archive it, we should, or this will bloat quickly to >100 kB after the stuff ended. Even in prose, it is nearly 75 kB. I think its time for archival. Gale5050 (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)