FANDOM


Line 98: Line 98:
 
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.
 
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 affected is most wise, no?
+
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.--[[File:Sign243.png|x25px|DragonBorn96|link=User:DragonBorn96]]<sup>[[User talk:DragonBorn96|<font color= "Orange">'''''Talk'''''</font>]] </sup> 02:27, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
 
Overall if you cannot tell I am wholly in opposition for this chat ban to be lifted.--[[File:Sign243.png|x25px|DragonBorn96|link=User:DragonBorn96]]<sup>[[User talk:DragonBorn96|<font color= "Orange">'''''Talk'''''</font>]] </sup> 02:27, November 6, 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:27, November 6, 2013

Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Chatban Review - SaintPain
 
Gametitle-Wiki
Gametitle-Wiki


Hello all,

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 Speech Jspoel 15:36, November 4, 2013 (UTC)

Comments

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. ForGaroux 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.  The Gunny  380px-USMC-E7 svg 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 Intercom01 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. Enclavesymbol 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??? Detroit lions 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 TinySaintPainHere 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.

The punishment should always be proportional to the offense— Skire

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.

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.— Js

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?"UserRichard 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. ForGaroux 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 TinySaintPainHere 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?"UserRichard 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. ForGaroux 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?"UserRichard 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. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 05:08, 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 4 Star Dragon Ball Edit 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. ForGaroux 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. --THE NUCLEAR KING 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. FollowersApocalypseLogoōrdō āb chao 07:26, November 5, 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for this. Hugs MadeMan2 "Say 'ello to my little friend!"

I support a ban lift on SaintPain. He's been very nice and friendly to me, and I think he should get a second chance. Leea (talk) 12:18, November 5, 2013 (UTC)

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.--Sign243Talk 02:27, November 6, 2013 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.