| ||This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.|
In the past weekend I received a request on my talkpage from SaintPain to have his chatban reviewed and possibly be lifted. As probably most of you remember, more than a year ago he was chatbanned permanently after receiving earlier bans. A month after the ban, I set up a forum to see if there was enough support to give him a last chance (see Forum:Request for lifting Saint Pain's chat-ban) because I felt the punishment was well out of proportion to the violation. As he told me and from what I could see in the log it wasn't even an intentional violation. But Saint's got an eccentric character that kept getting him into trouble, with people not- or misunderstanding him. The ban stood, but it got people thinking, was discussed and voted for, and led to the new policy of a ban review and lift after a year's ban.
Now SaintPain has come to me wanting to make use of the policy. A lot of terms have to be met to pass and I think he meets them. It was never a matter of premeditated attempt to troll or annoy chatters, but his (strange) way with words that got in the way. It's not entirely clear what will happen if the would return to chat but I believe this chat ban of a year must have gotten him thinking about his way of speech and behaviour. So I feel he make an honest, good and improved attempt in chat. Next to that, I want to mention he's never held a grudge and kept himself active and involved in the community where he could in the past year, in blog-comments, editing, developing friendship, joining a project and participating in The Apprentice. All very commendable, especially when you consider his chat-status.
We have a unique situation here. Normally (chat)bans are 99% a matter of vandalising or trolling. With SaintPain that is clearly not the case, far from it. It's his personality that got in the way. I think he deserves a chance to return to chat and show he has grown. I hope you're willing to give it to him as well. Saint has served his time well over now.
This discussion thread will be here for a week; with enough support, the ban will be lifted after that time. With reasonable opposition, the request will go to a vote. Jspoel 15:36, November 4, 2013 (UTC)
I support this with all of my being. Saint is not a malicious person. He has never intentionally harmed our wiki, and is very active and friendly within our community. I hope everyone is willing to look beyond the way he speaks so that they can see the actual person behind his words. A person that has shown again and again that they only wish the best for our wiki. Some Assembly Required! 15:41, November 4, 2013 (UTC)
I can't put it better than the opinions of Jspoel and Garoux. When there is no bad intention, then why would we have such an excessive punishment? He does a great job in our community, so I hope I'll see him soon in chat.-- Greets 15:56, November 4, 2013 (UTC)
As someone who supported the initial ban of SaintPain, it gives me a lot of joy to support removing his ban. Over the past 12 months Saint has proven himself to the the type of person we want in this community. He has worked hard at improving the wiki, and despite not being able to participate in chat has made a strong effort to maintain good community links. I've gained a newfound respect for Saint, and hope to see him return to chat imminently. Agent c (talk) 16:05, November 4, 2013 (UTC)
The most important part to me are Saint's actions after the ban. He did not take his ball and go home, nor did he go all postal on the site. He simply continued to do what he does, adding images and editing. To me, this shows a lack of malice and a respectable level of maturity. I fully support the opportunity for Saint to show us he's learned from the experience and allow him back into chat. 20:26, November 4, 2013 (UTC)
I've always believed that punishment should be done not with malice in mind, rather reformation. Saint is a good guy and he's only contributed in good faith. He's on here every day doing some good work. I think he's served long enough outside of chat, and I, and many others would love to see him back. --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving 20:32, November 4, 2013 (UTC)
I support SaintPain's chatban being uplifted immediately. He's a cool guy and very helpful to our Wiki, and I for one would like the opportunity to talk with him in chat. 20:39, November 4, 2013 (UTC)
I can't gather a complete picture from the initial ban lifting request forum, but I've gotten enough info. A lot of people are saying that SaintPain has gotten better, and if he has, then I'm very concerned with what our definition of "better" is. From how he's treated me, I've found that he holds a grudge, he overreacts, he's rude, and he has a heck of a short temper. But the factors around his ban are too vague, and I therefore have no reason to believe that he should continue to be banned permanently. He's been banned for a year, and we have to give him a chance to prove that he's learned something. If history repeats itself, then we won't be seeing SaintPain in chat for that long if we let him go back in, but if he really cleaned himself up, he'll stay, I'm sure. I support lifting his ban to give him a chance to show us what he's learned. 69.l25 (talk) 20:54, November 4, 2013 (UTC)
I dunno. Is he gonna say "gay is as gay does", all the goddamn time??? Hawk da Barber 2012 - BSHU Graduate 00:34, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
This has my full support. The punishment should always be proportional to the offence. And even then, as I cited in the first appeal, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. --Skire (talk) 00:52, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
Just as Skire said above "The act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty".
- I never intended any harm. If I could be reinstated I understand I will be held under the sword of Damocles.
SaintPain→ Here to help." 02:58, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
I'm in favor of Saint beling allowed to return to chat, I have fond memories of chit chatting with him back in the day. (Damn I sound old when I say that).I don't remember him as being a particularly malicious individual, nothing like the users I've had to ban since becoming a mod. Richie9999 (talk) 03:13, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
Just because Pain does not mean to cause harm doesn't mean he would be okay in chat. We don't allow people to speak non English languages, even if they were not intending to be malicious when they do it and, I may or may not be alone here, what Pain speaks is not English. He speaks his own little language I like to call Painlish, a wonderful syntax that revolves around riddles and David Bowie quotes instead of typical words or phrases but, as wonderful as this language is and as fine of a gentleman Pain is, it is far from being understandable English (UK, US or whatever they speak in Canada, eh) which does pose the problem.
I am, as I have previously shown, against the "daaaww we should unban them" system all together, as it seems was too much like "I like this person and think they should be unbanned". There are many nobodies who have received ∞bans who may be in a very similar predicament to St Pain, they weren't bad people they just did bad things, but because no one knows them no one would ever vote for "lets un ban them", in any forum that did get started, which basically leads us in to a "lets play friendship" predicament.
Now, that is not what was voted for, so fair enough if that's not what we're doing. But honestly I see this whole "vote for chat ban lifting" to be people wanting a safety net for people they like who get banned. There shouldn't be an "I can earn my way back in to chat by playing nice in the forums" system, they are two very different places. You get banned from the chat? Sorry mate, but you still have the wiki. He was banned for a reason, was the reason intentional? Maybe, maybe not it doesn't matter. He had more than enough chances to follow the rules and he either:
A) Chose not to
or B) Is somehow unable to
In either case, having him in chat is not preferable, as people who won't or can't follow the rules end up getting banned again anyway.
That would be all well and good, if that was the system we used. But we go by strikes, ban one, ban two, ban three, one for for good measure annndddd... you're out. If we used a "the punishment should always be proportional to the offense" system we would have to re think our entire banning system, which is a discussion for another day.
It feels like the is just a way to overthrow decisions made by moderators (or admins) in chat. Honestly, yes I like Pain, he's a nice guy and is easy to have a nice chat with in his own special higgeldy piggeldy way but I don't see why "he's a nice guy, give him another shot" should work here. He was a nice guy when he got banned, this isn't a question of a child maturing and becoming adult enough to behave themselves. A nice guy to a nice guy is not a change and if being a nice guy wasn't enough to stop him getting a perma the first time, why would it stop him getting another this time? The biggest reason I get here is people saying "I liked talking with him" and "he was my friend" but they don't really hold up.
I liked talking with Yakov and he wasn't any more malicious than your typical Russian, but he was equally an able to follow the rules set out for him as Pain was. Equally, I liked talking with Luckmann but he got banned from the wiki overall. "Being a nice guy who I like to talk" to isn't enough for me. "Being a nice guy who I like to talk to and is able to follow the rules well enough to not get banned 4 times" is, but of course if he was that we wouldn't need this debate, would we.
I hate to be the killjoy here (although not really, I feed on the pain of others) but I feel this should stay in place.
So wait... this is a vote on if we should have a vote or not? This needs to get a few people for and it's a yes, but it needs to get enough people against (twice) for it to not pass?JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 03:53, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
- ===Reviews of permanent blocks or chat bans===
Any user who has been permanently banned from the wiki or the chat may request the ban to be lifted after 12 months has passed from their last infraction of the rules (this includes multiple accounts).
- This request should be made to a Bureaucrat - ideally on their talk page. Where this is not possible, it should be made on the user's own talk page. Where both of these options are not possible, or no response is received after a timely period has passed, such an incident should be relayed via a bureaucrat's wall on Community Central.
- When evaluating received requests, the Bureaucrat in question is not obliged to assume good faith, where they believe there is a reason for not extending such a courtesy, but should still be prepared to listen with an open and fair mind.
- The Bureaucrat in charge of reviewing a permanent ban may wish to examine the following when evaluating the request (this list is non exhaustive):
- The events that lead to the final ban
- Any attempts to circumvent the ban
- The length of time that has passedbut
- Any extenuating circumstances that may have applied at the time of the final ban (Issues in personal life, etc).
- The users good acts prior to the ban
- Any personal growth the user has done since the ban
- Their behavior on other Wikia wikis
- If the Bureaucrat believes that clemency is warranted, they may start a forum thread discussing the users status. This thread should first be opened as a discussion for at least a week. If there is no objection, the ban may be lifted at this time; if there is an objection, the result should go to a community poll.
- The Bureaucrat may temporarily lift wiki bans at their discretion to allow for the user to argue their own case. The user, however, is expected not to edit any other pages other than their own talk page (or talk pages to those who have posted on theirs), and the discussion page itself; any messages should relate to their own hearing only. Any breach of this may result in the discussion immediately being closed (and resolved in the negative) at the Bureaucrat's discretion.
- Bans are only to be reviewed once.
- The user may immediately be permanently banned if they are involved in all but the most trivial offenses.
- Any special rights held by the user will not be reapplied. Some Assembly Required! 04:00, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
Jasper I really don't understand your harsh stance against me. I have never said a thing against you in private or public chat or talk pages at this site or any other & yet at every turn there you are, dagger in hand.. If I have offended you in some way I would honestly like to know what it was. You are of course welcome to your opinion but I have no idea what I have done to make you so dislike me.
- Please tell me what I must do to make this right for you ?
SaintPain→ Here to help." 04:38, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
Pain, I believe I did state many times in my post that I like you as a person. This isn't about having offended me or not, this is about the rules and, when someone breaks the rules, they get banned. This is not a personal issue for me, it comes down to my views on permabans, and they stick no matter how much I like the bannee, unless an unjust ban took place, which I do not believe in the case. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 04:44, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
- I respect your opinion Jasper, and I do not wish to dispute it as we are all entitled to our opinions. But I want to reiterate on the policy I referred to above which states that perma-bans are up for discussion after a year at a Bureaucrat's discretion. So this forum is about the rules, too, and how Saint has every right to petition an extra chance. Some Assembly Required! 04:48, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
- I did never say he didn't, I am merely expressing my personal views. Yes he is well withing the rules to run for an unban, but so am I to vote against it. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 04:51, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I misinterpreted what you had said, then - It had seemed to me you were against this because it would be playing favourites and setting a bad precedent, when Saint is just following policy. Some Assembly Required! 05:08, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
- I did never say he didn't, I am merely expressing my personal views. Yes he is well withing the rules to run for an unban, but so am I to vote against it. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 04:51, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
Sorry if this was already mentioned above, I couldn't read the entire page. I support Pain being unbanned, but I think he should only be given one more ban chance. For example, if he breaks the rules, is kicked, breaks them again and is banned, that ban should be another perma-ban (Rather than following the standard 1-2-3 you're out style rule we usually use). - Chris 05:05, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
- You pretty much hit the nail on the head. Our policies state that only one review will ever be made after being perma-banned. So if this vote does pass in Saint's favour, it will be the last review he can ever request. Same goes for anyone else, and same goes if the vote fails. Some Assembly Required! 05:10, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
Saintpain is one of the most contributing members of this community. He's also one of the most social members of this community as well. I know this has nothing to do with his chat-ban, but maybe we can trust him enough to behave. He's still a friendly guy and I believe he deserves at least one more chance to show how trustworthy he is when he's in chat. It's obvious everyone here likes him so we shouldn't have a problem with him in chat again. -- Talk 07:00, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
100% support. Pain is harmless and I've been less frequent in chat since his absence, it'll be good to have him back. Can't say much else. ōrdō āb chao 07:26, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
- I'm all for this. Hugs "Say 'ello to my little friend!"
I agree with the removal of SaintPain's Chat Ban. Although he was banned before my time on Nukapedia, He has always been a great person to me. He was cool when I trolled him and I enjoy his input on here. Sure he might have an odd way of saying what's on his mind, but that is what makes him unique. --MountHail (talk) 01:43, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
Well for starters I would like to point out that this now has to go to a community vote as there are now two objections to the removal of the chat ban and the policy, which was voted in with community consensus, states "...if there is an objection, the result should go to a community poll." and I would very much like to make a point of that fact regardless of whether or not you consider the opposition "reasonable".
Personally I consider the amount of warnings he has had before to be as significant now as they were when the ban first happened regardless of the time that has passed since those warnings as they are still there, plain as day and they should not be sweeped under the rug because the person is nice. I still find the amount of warnings/bans that have occured in the past disconcerting and I am certainly not willing to allow someone the chance to prove their trustworthiness as some of you say when he has many chances to do so before. Also, I would've thought a big part of this would be allowing Pain to actually voice his own belief as to why he believes he should be unbanned because I did read his message to Js and personally I did not find it a particularly compelling case when it only really said that you did not like the "stain" of the "Banned from Chat" mark, you also said you did not even intended to be on chat as much as you once were so this entire request is confusing me greatly because the first person to have stepped up to voice his concern should've been Saint Pain himself after the forum was created and I am seeing a distinct lack of that.
Furthermore I find the fact that some of you who are arguing for him to be allowed back into the chatroom are not proper regulars in the chatroom (regardless of your reasons for doing so, I can respect a genuine inability to be in the chatroom but the point remains) and one of my first concerns regarding this forum was the fact that how on earth would we obtain the consensus of the right group of people? The group this will primarily effect is the chatroom and without a public vote for them to involve themselves, especially since public consensus polls are placed in the public space in the wiki (this forum is not, if chat-goers don't know about it, how on earth can they get a say before it's just passed away when they could be relevant grievances), the very notion that this may have happened is also disconcerting to me. Surely when you make a change in a system, consulting the relevant people that will be potentially affected is most wise, no?
Overall if you cannot tell I am wholly in opposition for this chat ban to be lifted.--Talk 02:27, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
- Many of the bans are not relevant. Not only has he had bans revoked, but Vic himself said that his ban which resulted in Saint's perma-ban was an action he regretted and apologized for.
- The chat regulars do not get to say whom can vote or not. Whether you guys think someone or some people are not in chat enough to make a proper vote is completely subjective and irrelevant. Especially since the evidence has already been compiled and was thoroughly discussed during the original forum regarding this matter.
- Our policies state that the only people that need to be consulted for a hearing are our Bureaucrats. Just like everyone else on Nukapedia, even the chat regulars are expected to follow up on current wiki affairs if they wish to remain in the loop.
- Your opinion is fine, and I respect it. If you truly feel as if Saint doesn't deserve an extra chance, I will protect your right to state as such. But the sensationalism is unnecessary. Some Assembly Required! 02:45, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
- Consulting relevant people 'that will be potentially affected' is exactly what this forum is doing. All regulars in chat are able to have their say and vote if necessary. If they choose not to participate in the process than that is no one's fault but theirs.
- Furthermore, the community is the community, whether they be editors, chatters, administrators, those who participate in community events, or otherwise. To answer your question as to how to ascertain the consensus of the 'right' group of people, the entire community is the 'right group of people'. Chat is a feature of the wiki and does not operate autonomously as many seem to believe. My say in this is worth just as much as yours, DB, as is the say of someone who is never chat. We are discussing whether or not to return full site privileges to another user and anyone and everyone who is involved with this site has a right to vote and give their input. sectatorapocalypsi 04:44, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
In response to Jasper's earlier post, I'd like to do some quoting myself, specifically of the mentioned strike system:
Three days for the first offense
One week for the second offense
One month for the third offense
Any additional offenses may result in a permanent ban (only for registered users).
Being the official wording of Nukapedia policy, I'd like to point out the word "usually," which allows for exception, and the much more explicit clause, "These are just guidelines for usual cases." SaintPain's case is not a usual case, considering it has attracted much interest from users on both sides and has led to the creation of a ban review system. Furthermore, as affirmed by many others, the circumstances surrounding his ban also do not constitute a usual case.
Also, the concept of proportionality is a matter of personal application, which does not contradict Nukapedia policy. Nowhere does it ever state a permanent ban must be given upon a fourth offence. --Skire (talk) 03:15, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
- I would point out that by the time of his final ban, he was on his fifth. However, there is another user I am aware of who amassed a 4th ban that was later removed in light of pressure from other chatmods... So Saint is not the only recipient of special treatment. Agent c (talk) 14:39, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
- There are three instances that I am thinking of when you day that Chad. The first being Wasson, which was over turned at the request of a number of chat mods, myself included, which is obviously not based on how much we like him, seeing as I hate Wasson more than indie french cinema, Wasson was also banned at a later date and stayed banned on his 5th (and 4th real) ban. The second was Nate's, which was overturned at my request as the final ban was highly unfair (quick bit of background, people, Nate included, were told to stop pinging a moderator, Nate called him by a nickname instead of his real or screen name as he wanted to address him without pinging him but didn't know that name was a ping). The third being Yakov, by Tag, who was banned minutes after he came back to chat, by me.
- Regardless of these two, Pain has received more chances than your average person, and doesn't deserve a 6th, when it comes round to one year for Wasson's he won't get any yes votes to be allowed back, nor will Yakov (who's date has long passed), Nate would but despite how much I like to chat with him, I would stick to what I say here - he's had his chances.
- I have tried to look up the bans of St Pain but I can't find the reasons for older ones, however reading talk page logs for him it is clear that he reacted very badly to bans, claiming "power abuse" when moderators tried to enforce the rules, which goes to show he clearly doesn't understand the rules well enough, even if he intends to follow them. Being a nice guy who lacks the ability to follow the rules is no better to have around than a bad guy who refuses to follow them.
- When I was at secondary school this one kid attacked another boy, both were around the age of 12. The first boy was just walking along and randomly leapt at the second and started punching him, when my friends tried to pull him off the first boys sister started shouting "NO DON'T DO THAT HE HAS PROBLEMS!", which does not justify not following the rules. Pain may be a nice chap, but his inability to follow or understand the rules are what got him banned from chat, not once, not twice, not three or four, but five times. Why waste time making it a sixth?JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 18:39, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
With opposition being presented, we will be moving this decision into a community vote. Discussion may still take place here, as we discuss this with Saint before moving forward. We will see about having a community vote up shortly. Thank you for your patience and feedback everybody. Some Assembly Required! 02:59, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
I'm alarmed by this forum. Greatly alarmed. I've had little interaction with Saint Pain, and I've heard of his ban from a distance for quite some time, but I have never really formed an opinion on the matter. This puts me in a unique position of being completely unbiased in the matter.
I have seen it said several times that Saint Pain is a unique case. I find myself questioning this. How is he unique? Is it because he's super friendly? That's not a unique situation. That's a qualifier and not a quantitative measure of how he's learned from his ban. Now something more quantifiable is the supposed improvement that Pain has made to the wiki. Base his ban review off of his contributions to the wiki, Demonstrate and focus on that rather than him being friendly. Saying that he is friendly is exactly what Jasper is talking about. Playing favorites. We do not want to set a precedent based on that. If Saint Pain can demonstrate that he has learned his lesson about chat rules, and demonstrate how he has continued to contribute and improve the wiki since his ban, THEN I will consider voting to lift his ban. I WILL NOT VOTE TO LIFT A BAN BASED ON SOMEONE BEING FRIENDLY. Do not let your relationship with the person ever get in the way of making a decision that will impact the future of the wiki. If they deserve to be unbanned, they must prove it. That is the way our policies work. That is the way applications for extra rights work. Why would we ever base something so serious off a subjective measurement? ---bleep196- (talk) 04:53, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
- Bleep. I said this to DB, and I'll say it to you: stop with the sensationalism.
- " How is he unique? Is it because he's super friendly?"
- You know that is not the reasoning behind this. If you choose not to read the two discussion forums about this, then that is your prerogative.
- "Now something more quantifiable is the supposed improvement that Pain has made to the wiki."
- Saint has been editing Nukapedia nearly daily. He has been a sterling example of what we're looking for in editors aside from the occasional misspellings, and participates in community events and is friendly with most everyone here. We are not basing this off of him just being friendly. He has been contributing greatly to our wiki for over a year, and has never once lashed out at the wiki due to his chat-ban. He has been mature and exceedingly helpful for the entire wiki.
- "Playing favorites. We do not want to set a precedent based on that.""
- Excuse me? I'm already getting tired of this accusation. Saint is following our policies, which state that Saint has every right to have a ban hearing after a year has passed. If you'd be so kind, I refer you to the policy that I quoted earlier on this forum.
- "If Saint Pain can demonstrate that he has learned his lesson about chat rules, and demonstrate how he has continued to contribute and improve the wiki since his ban, THEN I will consider voting to lift his ban."
- He has. A year's worth of contributions and sterling behaviour has proven this.
Some Assembly Required! 05:00, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
- I've read everything here. I'm very aware of what's going on. However, I would like to see physical evidence of these contributions and behavior. If you, or even more importantly Pain himself, who should be presenting this anyways, can point me towards this I will be thoroughly satisfied. However, my alarm is at the fact that through reading this entire forum I see a lot of posturing towards Pain's friendliness, but no physical evidence for how he has changed other than saying that he has contributed. There is no pointing to specific evidence, no pointing to specific projects or contributions. That is my problem. I am going on word of mouth alone, and that is not enough for me. When I said we do not want to set a precedent based on playing favorites, I am not questioning standard policy. I understand that Pain has made a request for a hearing. I understand that that request has been granted and that we are currently undergoing the process. That is not where my problem lies. My problem lies with the fact that the majority of the votes have no definitive physical reason other than "Pain has been nice to me". That is playing favorites. Several of the votes point to contributions, but list nothing specific. That is not enough for me to vote to lift a permanent ban on. ---bleep196- (talk) 05:23, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
- I'm a bit confused as to why other people have to hold your hand on this one. Go into his contributions, and it's quite evident how many edits he has put in since his ban a year ago. Not sure what else to tell you. It's not like we're going to hand-pick his edits and directly quote them here. Some Assembly Required! 05:26, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
- Saint has added a large amount of content to our wiki. Here's a link. --MountHail (talk) 05:12, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
- I would actually like to add onto this: Saint has made around 2k edits in this past year alone. That is more than most of our Adminstrators have made in this past year. He has been an absolute boon to our wiki. Some Assembly Required! 05:15, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
After scrolling through several pages of the files uploaded by Saint Pain I am thoroughly impressed by his image and edit contributions in the time since his ban. Based on this and his behavior thus far in reacting to the criticism in this forum, I withdraw my objections to voting to lift Saint Pains ban, and in fact offer my support in his endeavors. It's clear to me now that Saint Pain is a serious contributor, and a valuable member of our community. ---bleep196- (talk) 05:30, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
The vote passes so SaintPain gets another chance in chat. Further motivation will follow later this evening. Jspoel 20:52, November 14, 2013 (UTC)