RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive39

Mod Powers: Can I have them?
I promise I won't let any of my unpcness seep into my modding at Rationalwiki; promise. Also not a troll. User:Viril.Feline.Wyyzrd 18:11 6 July 2021
 * You can only be elected as moderator after campaigning. Do you mean Sysop? Bongolian (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure; as long as it gives me move, delete, and block powers. VFW-icon.png User:Viril.Feline.Wyyzrd 18:17 6 July 2021
 * You’re not even autopatrolled yet, with good reason. Fixing your signature would be a start. Christopher (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You also don't have any mainspace edits. Making consistent constructive contributions is the best way forward. Bongolian (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What's your long term plan here Viril? Shabi  DOO  19:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You wanna become a moderator, you need to be eligible to run for this fall's election. However, you do not meet the requirements for account age or the number of mainspace edits. And even if you did you wouldn't stand a chance of actually winning, since in order to be electable you'd have to first make a name for yourself by contributing to rational thought. However, if you do stick around long enough to make mainspace edits that are of good enough quality then it'd only be a matter of time before you'd get demoted to sysop, as it's kind of our thing to make a sysop anyone who isn't an obvious bad-faith editor. But unless you become less sloppy with your sigs (by literally just bloody entering  ~  at the end) and actually make a few mainspace edits and give us a chance to see any redeeming qualities in you (especially given your morbid preoccupation with uncyclopedia and so-called "PCness"- unless by the latter you mean "PC Master Race")- both of which I find a bit sus), I doubt you'll get demoted to so much as autopatrolled. Until then, if some idiot on here does such prematurely then I will just promote you back. -- Goatspeed. 20:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Uncle cyclopedia could be forgiven, but getting kicked out of ED? What does one have to do for that honor? Bongolian (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ask Mike. — Oxyaena Harass  20:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless your debut on uncyclopedia is obvious trolling or vandalism, it isn't easy to be banned from there either (that is a rarity). They may not be as hyper relaxed as ED or here for that matter, but on the scale of internet wide wiki tollerance for shittery, it is pretty high on uncyclopedia. Shabi  DOO  21:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In general I feel that people should be judged on what they do here - rather than what they may have done somewhere else. Nevertheless, as it was this user themselves who told us they had been asked to leave ED - and I imagine they have brought the same username over - it might be instructive if they told us more.
 * Also, as others have said, power comes after constructive engagement.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

You were a mod on ED. Of course you are a troll. I can hear the turbobanners warming up in the background. Bongolian (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * For the record they were also quickly yeeted off RatCord so I don't have high expectations either. 19:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information. I'll be sure to ready my extra special banmjölnir of fascism to strike at his first and minorest of infractions.
 * Provided no-one else gets ahead of me. 19:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , since you suggested it, I think people should be forewarned not to look him up on ED. His homepage is definitely NSFW. Bongolian (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I should have taken this advice seriously. It's not NSFW. It's literally gore. With babies. Sorry, kid. Not even I can defend you this time. GeeJayK (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * NSFL is closest to the mark. 14:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Human refuse. On the bright side though, at least (AFAIK) he doesn't fetishize prepubescent Japanese girls like so many of the other horny ED edgelords- who clearly can't satisfy a woman and hate not being allowed to legally have sexual congress with 12-year-olds but can't move to Japan because mommy and daddy (whose basement they still live in) won't let them. -- Goatspeed. 16:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not being a pedophile is kind of a low bar. (I should add that this user has been a rather annoying stick in the mud in general in RW adjacent places, to the suprise of actively no-one). I'd strongly object to any attempt for this user to become a Moderator or a Trustee member (and they seem to want to do the latter). Techpriest (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Having looked at Viril.Feline.Wyyzrd's talk page on Encyclopaedia Dramatica (I chose not to look at his user page), it seems like he wasn't banned for being too "edgy" even for ED. He was banned for just being a lousy wiki editor. (As an aside, reading that talk page was an unpleasant enough experience with the constant homophobic slurs and a racist one too. I haven't been to a site like that for a long time and I wasn't ready for it.) And aren't the dead baby pictures added to a user's page on ED after they get banned? I also think Viril.Feline.Wyzzrd doesn't understand the difference between a RationalWiki Board member, mod and sysop. I think his election campaign is really just an appeal to be demoted to sysop. But what I've just said is the most I'll say in his defense. He doesn't deserve anymore. Spud (talk) 05:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * When do we get to ban this joker? I considered doing it when he used the t slur, but figured it’d be worth not doing it unilaterally without Community Consent. 06:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I blocked Viril.Feline.Wyyzrd for 3 days for that incident. The person appears to mainly pussyfooting around on his own page at this point. Just wait for something banworthy and that will be the end of it; no vote needed. Bongolian (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

UShistoryanalyzer's topic ban - Vote now closed
I don't have an opinion about this yet, so I'm just posting this here for awareness and possible clarification. Some people who voted for 's topic ban may consider this (Essay:The errors of Dinesh D'Souza) a violation. It's not in mainspace, so it's not so clear. Bongolian (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I remember, it was agreed that he could use the essay space as long as he didn't spam it, and since this is the first one as far as I know, I think it doesn't count. I might be wrong though, someone's going to have to dig up the case if you want to be 100% sure. GeeJayK (talk) 02:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC)As one of the most vocal proponents of his topic ban...I am okay with it. I envisioned it as being applied to main space and draft space-the places where he tries to actually insert his stupidity into, for lack of a better term, "official" articles which in turn wastes our time when people correct him and he reverts them, thus starting an edit war. People can and do post inaccurate garbage in essay space (or in the bar) all the time. At least it is quarantined.-Flandres (talk) 02:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. The topic ban does not extend to essayspace. Spud (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine by me although I disagreed with USH's topic ban in the first place since I found it overly broad. Topic bans generally are only meant to cover specific areas of mainspace articles to prevent someone from inserting poorly referenced/incompetent bullshit in them that makes us look dumb. Essays are clearly delineated as belonging to a certain user (with a few exceptions, usually for former mainspace articles that we agreed weren't good for mainspace but were good for essayspace) so they don't generally have to meet the strict requirements for referencing as much. They still require following CS of course and keep basic sanity in mind (USH shouldn't be using essayspace as if they were the mainspace, but that's not the case here). For clarity; USH originally got topic banned for causing edit wars. I still think his topic ban should be re-examined and seen if it can't be narrowed a bit more since the original was a wide-range buckshot.Techpriest (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this user has been friendly enough that I'm fine with dropping the topic ban either in part or in whole. 18:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly Spud was one of those that supported the ban from the essay space, so I believe at this point the case is closed. Regarding the topic ban, I was against it because I think USHistoryanalyzer was treated unfairly at least a few times, but if we're lifting it, I think it would be wiser to gradually lift it. Instead of topic banning him from US History and Politics, change it to articles related to the Civil Rights, Dixiecrats and similar stuff before dropping the whole topic ban. Certainly a person with the name UShistoryanalyzer has broader interests. After that, if he proves he's  100% in good faith, we drop the rest of the topic ban. GeeJayK (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would like the topic ban removed. Thanks. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * RationalWiki has yet to have an article on, which I can start such that the topic ban is removed. It would also make a nice debate as to whether she can be considered the predecessor to Phyllis Schlafly. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

This is the kind of analytical intellectual we're dealing with. It gets better: they later cite Heritage Foundation to support their claims. 19:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Yea
01:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Recent bar post. Holy shit, I was wroooooong. 04:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) -Flandres (talk) 01:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Strongly oppose. This user hasn't demonstrated that they learned a thing about pushing Dixiecrat fallacies and the fact that there hasn't been a major incident is evidence that the topic ban is working, not that it should be removed for some stupid reason. Plus, I could previously just temp ban him or protect a page if he was acting up, but now since some idiot gave him sysop powers if he acts up again it will have to result in a whole fucking coop case and I don't want to have to go through that. He's not entitled to having it removed just because he's been "nice", even just today he's shown hostility to people he disagrees with showing he hasn't learned a damn thing. In order for the ban to be removed, he has to actually show goodwill and demonstrate he's changed, not act entitled just because he met the bare minimum of not being a disruptive user. Plutocow (talk) 04:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You keep using the silly "Dixiecrat fallacy" excuse to dismiss whatever factual knowledge I state that happens to contradict your worldview. And yet that is supposed to be a firm basis to uphold my topic ban? UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for demonstrating my point for me. Plutocow (talk) 04:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ...which is that you evidently support preventing a user from editing on a topic if the facts they point out don't fit your viewpoints. Hmm, maybe that's a sign it's you who needs to show goodwill and change your habits. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 04:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Bongolian (talk) 07:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) This user has a problem in one specific area. That doesn't warrant lifting the entire topic ban. It does however mean that the original area on which this topic ban was defined is overly broad. I support a narrowing, not an outright removal. Techpriest (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) I completely withdraw my support for any lifting of the topic ban. He's just a fucking troll and he can fuck off. Spud (talk) 05:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) What kind of a person who has the air of a history analyzer cannot even tell the different between a source, a bad source and an embarrassing source? Shabi  DOO  06:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) I was wroooooooong. 07:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Nope! 07:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) A troll that should be editing other Wikis that support his shitty Lost Cause. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 8) Why do we allow reactionary trash on this wiki? — Oxyaena Harass  17:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 9) The ideological opposition doesn't bother me as much as their intellectual dishonesty. 19:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Yea

 * 1) In case the full removal of topic-ban doesn't get sufficient support. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) See my reasons above. GeeJayK (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, enough with the dixiecrat content. My support of this is conditional; if he engages in even the slightest bit of edit warring or harassing other editors on their talk pages, the full and indefinite topic ban should be reinstated. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 01:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sure this won't go well, but at least we'll get to say we tried it...-Flandres (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 01:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Sounds like the best compromise.--Gale5050 (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Per cosmik. User is problematic in one area, not in others. Could be adjustable in the future. Techpriest (talk) 11:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Fully removing topic-ban is too far, this is ok. And what happened that some users withdrew their support from this? 07:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It was this series of edits: Bongolian (talk) 08:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) The topic ban was widely construed for a reason. He would spread his views on articles like Phyllis Schlafy and John Birch Society which barely had anything to do with civil rights, and removing this will just give him an excuse to rule lawyer. Plus, everything in my first paragraph about him not having demonstrated any goodwill to change. Plutocow (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Bongolian (talk) 04:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC) UShistoryanalyzer fails to make good-faith edits as demonstrated in the Saloon edits. I regret having given UShistoryanalyzer a mop. Bongolian (talk) 06:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It wasn't actually you, User:Monet had the template as his old sig. I keep seeing talk page comments that I'm sure I didn't make, then I remember. --RWRW (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Jesus-fuck-a-duck, . There should be a policy against abusive use of that template. Bongolian (talk) 07:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) I completely withdraw my support for any lifting of the topic ban. He's just a fucking troll and he can fuck off. Spud (talk) 05:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Noooooope Shabi  DOO  06:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) I was so very wrong. 07:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Nope! 07:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) — Oxyaena  Harass  17:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) Only voted aye because it seemed like it was inevitable anyway, and I wanted to be able to say we "gave him a chance" in the inevitable thread when the community would reinstate it. Frankly I'm not shocked this about-face happened. He's always been very good at humiliating himself without realizing it.-Flandres (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 8) Nope. All these shocking lack of a basic reading comprehension makes me feel they're here to just be contrarian and spit right wing talking points rather than actually engage with the topics. If this user cannot grasp the basics of exactly why sharing PragerU is unacceptable source, beyond "PragerU disagrees" and into understanding that PragerU has failed basic fact checks you can do yourself by sometimes even reading their own sources and has a major conflict of interests behind their misrepresentations and distortions (something practically every other longtime user on RationalWiki understands), this user does not deserve benefit of doubt. I understand why RawStory, a left wing source sucks, surely right wingers need to understand why PragerU sucks especially those that call themselves analyzers. More time analyzing your own sources, less time spilling the place with your media diet. 19:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The PragerU video in question was one of those sad attempts at a "gotcha!" style trying to force in a conclusion that "lol the entire college left are racists!". However, aside from the ridiculously unscientific approach of "Youtube video throwing questions at a few random people", PragerU of course confused "voluntary tribalism" (in accordance with freedom of association) with "segregation", the later of which typically has involuntary and legal overtones that the former does not. So the whole premise of the video was stupid, which is par for the course for PragerU. This also is pretty typical of this user's style when discussing anything racism, it typically gets spun stupidly for political purposes. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You know what's sadder? That's the second time with the same video. And if you check this person's talk page, you get A LOT of messages telling them to improve their sourcing. They're not going to improve. It's safe to say they're intellectually dishonest at worst or incredibly dense at best. 17:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) "Directly related"????? This is a recipe for him pushing the rules and bending our defenses until they break. 15:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Vote now closed
It's been ten days. I now declare this vote officially closed. Only UShistoryanalyzer himself voted for a complete lifting of the topic ban and 11 people voted against it. 6 people voted for a partial lifting of the topic ban and 11 people voted against it. The topic ban therefore stays in place. Spud (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

RMF Nominations for this years election
I created a page for it, but it's probably full of mistakes. 17:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn’t who’s up for election etc need to be decided by the board? Especially given the irregularities due to resignations. Christopher (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Isn‘t it that you can nominate anyone who has all requirements? 19:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyone can nominate, I meant which current board members need to be run. Christopher (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Spud/FuzzyCatPotatos two-year terms are over, while Grammar Commie resigned. So we will elect three members.  20:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * David Gerard's term actually expired in 2020, and he declined to run again at that time. Bongolian (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * well.. 20:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You linked to an edit I made a while back where I said Gerard wasn’t on the board, exactly what Bongolian is saying now. Christopher (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I meant that he has still staff rights. He’s no longer on the board, but he still has staff rights ‘cause he has access to the server. 21:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That’s completely irrelevant. It isn’t the staff election, it’s the board election. Christopher (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So what fucking seats are open? Or do we just elect all six in one go since no one knows what the fuck is going on? 21:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've chosen to reference the actual bylaws. There must be 5 trustees, not including the Operations Manager (Tim). This means that practically speaking:
 * Elections are on staggered 2-year terms. That being said, Duce's resignation 2 years ago meant that one of the electees this time around only served a single year term. In addition, we had two resignations out of the previous election which also need to be filled.
 * FCPs and Spuds positions are the ones currently considered up for re-election due to time-based expiry.
 * Either Dysks or GCs seat will have to become a single-year seat. The other can be considered a filled term since Duce resigned.
 * This means we will be re-electing basically all board members except for LGM.
 * Any further questions? Techpriest (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So three full-term and one for one year. 06:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And someone should add a template that the nominations for the board already started. 06:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Since nominations have started, someone should put up a site notice to that effect. Bongolian (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. We also need our voting ballot counters. I've already asked Cosmik but we need one more volunteer since Ze isn't on the wiki anymore. Techpriest (talk) 08:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, you could help Cosmik since youre a tech. (Unless you want to run for board) 08:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no intentions to self-doxx by becoming a board member. Techpriest (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That said, yeah I can accept that nomination although I want to point out that I can't serve in such a role when the mod elections show up. Techpriest (talk) 08:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Banning impersonating signatures
In case you're unaware, Monet aka Kevlarstar used Template:USERNAME in their signature for a period of time, making it look as if other people were posting their comments, which recently resulted in a lot of confusion. I think there should be a formal rule banning this and other similarly impersonating signatures, what do you think? Plutocow (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. Fun fact, before he turned into Kevlarstar and Monet, he was known as Iwillprobablygetbanned. Still looking forward to him becoming more than a drive by nuisance to really earn that original nick. 14:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that was an abuse of the user name template. Whereas at the time the comments were first posted, most RatWikians would have quickly realized what was going on and that they weren't being impersonated, we've seen today that it can cause a lot of confusion later. People have imperfect memories and, looking back on comments from weeks, months or years ago, that misuse of the template could easily lead them to believe they said and did things they never did. It shouldn't be allowed to happen again. Spud (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Zero objections. Also didnt know that Monet was Kevlar/Iwillprobablygetbanned. Should probably propose this on the CS talkpage with some formal text about not having a disruptive signature. let me know if you want to do that, I can set up the site header for that to be put to a vote. Techpriest (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would support having a vote. Plutocow (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, RationalWiki_talk:Community_Standards is where this belongs. As per Techpirest. 16:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t think we need to formalise this, far too much hassle. Mods can just use common sense. Christopher (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This could get annoying fast... 16:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, i lose track of who used to be who with everyone changing their username every five minutes. its a real pain in the arse and you all should stop it AMassiveGay (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If it helps, I used to be "Coigreach" and an angry pain in the arse. Then I had my handle switched in an attempt to reimagine myself as a less angry person. But I mostly failed and remain an angry pain in the collective arse. 18:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I'm no fun at parties but that template has always irritated me to no end. 19:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There's something in "preferences" that puts "fake name" after any use of it- I've always had it. Scream!! (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's "Display a warning on usernames inserted by Javascript." Scream!! (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like my sysop powers back - Vote now closed
Notwithstanding my political opinions, I do help block trolls/vandals like Kennypoot and Mikeyscum. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Restored as per User talk:UShistoryanalyzer. Try not to cause trouble. Bongolian (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The sysop by Monet is a hell of a mistake and continues to be one. You notice not a single mod tried to revert or dispute GC's taking away the mop. Now try to imagine why everyone was so apathetic from defending you and take that as a clear warning. 14:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Notice how Kenny and Mikey returned after I got my administrator abilities removed for three days thanks to GrammarCommie's sore loser raging? I recommend you observe a few patterns. I also successfully got LT to stop creating more socks on this site. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, you can stop socks on an open edit wiki with no CheckUser, rollback, and a ton of other active sysops. Who are you trying to impress? You'll be more liked if you focus more on article improvement and stop freaking doubling down like a cornered rat when you're called out for sharing bad sources and making unsubstantiated talking points. Your first message should've been "oops sorry I shared PragerU again I didn't realize you can't trust it and I'll try to find better sources" not a sultry passive aggressive "wah wah look at how much worse off RationalWiki is without me; if only mean ol'GC and his stupid nose didn't block me!! 😤" 19:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify here. I did not restore UShistoryanalyzer's mop for any other reason than that the restoration was promised at the time of removal. Troll blocking is no great talent, and let us remember that correlation does not imply causation. Bongolian (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I love how despite having a massive ego I take less pride in my edits than most of the drama magnet users. 19:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You're a drama magnet yourself, GC. Be more mindful when you speak. — Oxyaena Harass  12:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You're a drama magnet yourself, GC. Be more mindful when you speak Bahahahahahaha. That's so rich and awesome. Ace303, 808, 909 23:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * — Oxyaena Harass  23:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * doesn't ace have an interaction ban. 04:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah he does. Not that he cares. — Oxyaena Harass  10:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oxy, uh, what about you. 19:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's why I'm commenting, this comment pissed me off and I decided to be tactful in reminding GC that he's hardly any better on his worst of days. — Oxyaena Harass  22:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Mods can we just take away the mop from this imbecile for good and let the sysops block em when they're keeping up with their intellectual dishonesty 19:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I support this solution, I don't want the threat of a coop every time they do something stupid. Plutocow (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ditto. — Oxyaena Harass  22:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's going to come to a vote one way or another. Might as well start one. Bongolian (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I fully support permanently desysopping UShistoryanalyzer. Spud (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Let's end the meta-drama and start the vote: Bongolian (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Should we also vote on sysoprevoke? Plutocow (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * One would assume that a formal vote on removing sysop would imply sysoprevoke. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 00:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes

 * 1) He's a troll. He's a friend and defender of other trolls. He doesn't deserve this level of trust. Spud (talk) 03:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) They've been demopped by me but I'm hoping this vote is a sysoprevoke. 04:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) We really should stop the "hand admin rights out like candy" thing.-Flandres (talk) 04:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know what sort cloud cuckoo land judgement Monet had, and I thought Gale would be better than being Gale, but other than that, pretty sure most sysops are well behaved. 04:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually agree, Flandres, but until we change those rules... 15:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Besides their dubious connections to numerous banned trolls such as LT and Ken, this user has shown no willingness to improve their attitude or learn from their mistakes and I now know better than to try to reason with them and the only thing I can do is prevent their bullshittery from spilling over into the mainspace. I fully suppport sysoprevoke. Plutocow (talk) 04:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) User is not here to actually contribute anything. Shabi  DOO  05:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena  <font color="Red">Harass  10:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) I really can't see why this fiend was given the mop in the first place. 14:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

No

 * 1) As long as he doesn't abuse his sysop rights, I'm opposed to sysoprevoke him. 06:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Hasn't abused his powers as a sysop. ffs, Rob had the mop for years. The rules are clear: the mop is only removed if it's abused. Techpriest (talk) 10:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "The mop is only removed if it's abused." Is this vote even valid, since he didn't abuse it? 11:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Rob subsequently had the mop removed and got banned for being noxious, GR also had a mop and was defended by people on account he didn't blatantly abuse the mop, whose reasoning quickly looked terrible in a few months. Both were demopped for primarily being disruptive dolts, not necessarrily for mop abuse. 15:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I understand everything is since live in a mobocracy. GeeJayK (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Trotting out Nobs is a blatant case of nutpicking. His existence here for many years was effectively grandfathered in until the community standards changed to require civility. The mob rules. The rules don't rule the mob. Bongolian (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Rob was never specifically demopped for power abuse. He only ever lost his mop to enforce blocking related sanctions and it was restored afterwards. The reason I brought him up is that the sysop role is at it's core based around you not abusing it. Being an asshole or a drama magnet doesn't mean you shouldn't have a mop on it's own. Mops should only be removed for deliberate power abuse, for enforcing other sanctions or very sparingly to dissuade edit wars (and usually being restored ASAP once things settle down). Techpriest (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also to be clear, GR was demopped because it was the only way the user in question could be dissuaded from starting a shitton of edit wars and provoking other users. We simply didn't have the resources to properly pagelock arguments without GR pushing his own narrative or by pestering mods at the time, so a sysoprevoke was the only way for other editors to put a lid on his edit warring. USH doesn't edit war from what I can tell. Techpriest (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, some of you seem to be forgetting how bad the GR shitstorm got. This doesn't even come close. 20:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) As others have noted, it isn't clear from this thread that he has abused his sysop powers. <font color="#00abcb">𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒  talk  12:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Hasn't abused his protection block powers as a far as I know. Has been a dumbfuck and a drama baiter. 12:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Not seeing the actual "abuse of powers" thing. Being a jerk is not actually a reason for not being a sysop - abusing sysop powers is. If I'm missing something then I'm sure someone will tell me.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) they are a bellend but...AMassiveGay (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) If being a wanker was sufficient reason to be demopped, there'd be fewer than ten sysops on RW. Scream!! (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 14:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) A few months ago I supported putting Oxy on sysoprevoke. I was wrong, she didn't abuse her sysops rights at that moment. Same here. It shouldn't be punishment. I didn't read all the posts on the Saloon, but extending the topic ban to discussion pages sounds more reasonable than this. That being said, I agree with Flandres that we give those rights too easily. GeeJayK (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) --RWRW (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) I haven't abused my sysop powers, and fail to see how mere dramatic discussions can be grounds for removing them. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) User is often a dipshit, but he’s not one who has been destructive with mop powers. 15:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We should change our rules so that people like USHA don't get the mop in the first place. But until then USHA hasn't broken the rules.  15:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually I decided to abstain for now. I won't vote to remove since I can't in good conscious vote to remove mop from someone who technically didn't break the rules, but that doesn't mean I must vote to protect them.  Life lesson?  Don't be a'noi'ying.  15:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) If he had done something worthy of promotion, someone would’ve mentioned it by now. The only thing he uses his sysop rights for is blocking vandals. Being disliked or having stupid opinions isn’t against the rules. Christopher (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Goat

 * What has he done to deserve desysopping? It isn’t clear from this thread. Christopher (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem with a user like him having sysop powers is that it becomes hard to block him when he misbehaves, and it inevitably results in a lot of drama like you are seeing here. Plutocow (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just do it like GC: Remove his sysop rights during the block and reinstate it afterwards. 14:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Then why give him sysop!!? Sysop is a kind of privilege we give to users we trust? It's not like this user needs the block, revert, or user rights privileges. Why should we allow this obvious bad faith troll these tools? Sure any abuse can be easily mitigated but why trust this guy with tools to begin with? 19:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow. 6x0 to 7x9. GeeJayK (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Good to see that most users still obey the rules. 15:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The rules are obeyed. That's good. What happens? This community suffers from having to deal with this dipshit. Good job, guys, at least rules are adhered to, even if everyone else loses. 19:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Should someone who isn't productive to a community gets sysop? The whole "well they didn't break the rules" isn't good defense for this user. You're promoting wasting everyone's time with this loser in the long run. 14:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said before I think this is a valid discussion, but IMO we should change the rules before bringing it to a specific case. GeeJayK (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That would probable be more appropriate. I seem to remember the standard was "mostly harmless" at one time.  Maybe it still is.  It doesn't seem unreasonable to me but if people want to revisit then they should. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel like the sysop rules should be "at least vaguely productive". It took several months before I got my mop, back then the other sysops weren't nearly so zealous in giving out the mop to everyone.  15:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well RationalWiki:Sysops gives us the current situation.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Then it appears someone should suggest a vote on new rules Re:Sysops. 16:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging since he gave this idea. I remember Hastur saying something similar not so long ago. GeeJayK (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * i did a whole lot of fuck all to get whatever rights i have. i dont think i have ever used them AMassiveGay (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You... just did. GeeJayK (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * i know - maybe second time ever AMassiveGay (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Think about benefits of sysoprevoke. The doorknob can still (try to) contribute like normal and continue being a dipshit. They can't run for mod or for RMF either. People can block em for a few hours for being a dipshit. We're not taking their voice away, just that this bad faith user is easier to deal with. 19:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This was a bit uncalled, Mario. If he runs, if he wins and if he causes trouble is a a slippery slope to say the least. And in any case, it will be the mob's fault (which can promote him, like we almost did to Ace only a couple of months ago). If you're talking about the electoral process, well, if (and again, it's a big if) he causes trouble we can just block him. Which raises the second point. People can still block him. The only difference is that it will take 15 seconds instead of 25, which is quite petty if you want my honest opinion. GeeJayK (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This guy isn't nearly as bad as either Rob or GR. Until he gets to that absolutely unbearable level, I think sysoprevoke is unwarranted. He's just annoying right now, not disruptive. 20:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've decided to sit this out instead. Bongolian (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Meh. Though I have a bad feeling that this isn't the last of this particular issue, I have no solid opinion one way or the other at this time. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 22:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Vote now closed
I'm declaring this vote closed before the section disappears off the page. There were 7 votes to permanently strip USHistoryanalyzer of his sysop status. There were 12 votes for him to remain a sysop. Many of those who voted for that option are users I respect and admire and some of them are users I genuinely like. USHistoryanalyzer remains a sysop for now.

Now I really hope I'm wrong, but I think our problems with that user are only just beginning. Spud (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)