Forum:Community Vote - Saint Pain's Chat Ban

Forums: Index > Wiki proposals and applications > Community Vote - Saint Pain's Chat Ban

As seen in this week's Bureaucratic hearing regarding Saint Pain's permanent chat ban enacted a little over a year ago, opposition has been presented and we will begin converting this process over to a community vote. Please review the prior discussion leading up to this vote before making a decision here.

With two discussions taking place and this incident already scrutinized thoroughly, I will cut to the chase and begin the voting process now:

The Vote

Poll finished on 10:11 pm November 13, 2013 (UTC).

• A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
• You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section:
  • Use # {{yes}} ~~~~ if you support the proposal.
  • Use # {{no}} ~~~~ if you are against the proposal.
  • Use # {{neutral}} ~~~~ if you wish to abstain.
• Please do not edit other user's votes.

Yes

Vote yes if you wish to see Saint Pain's chat ban removed

1. Peace'n Hugs ^Greets
2. Please see my thoughts on the Bureaucratic hearing for my vote rationale. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 22:15, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
3. Agent c (talk) 22:23, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
4. MountHail (talk) 22:24, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
5. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 22:27, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
6. Please see my thoughts on the Bureaucratic hearing for why I'm voting like this. ---bleep196- (talk) 22:31, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
7. ^{"Semper Invictus"} 22:45, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
8. I agree with the rationale provided by Leon and other supporters in the forum. Saint's continued community presence and numerous high-quality images and edits are more than enough to prove that he deserves another chance in chat. ^sectator_apocalypsi 23:09, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
9. Leea (talk)
10. My reasons remain the same as in the previous vote last year.
    Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪}
11. Saint has done great work in the past few months and acknowledges that his behaviour in chat, should his ban be lifted, must be stellar. --Skire (talk) 01:50, November 7, 2013 (UTC)
12. 02:09, November 7, 2013 (UTC)
13. Richie9999 (talk) 02:20, November 7, 2013 (UTC)
14. ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"} 20:56, November 7, 2013 (UTC)

No

Vote no if you wish to see Saint Pain's chat ban remain

1. As I have said in the forum, I don't think that Pain being a nice guy who means no harm won't stop him this time if it didn't stop him last time. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 01:31, November 7, 2013 (UTC)
2. --Zerginfestor (talk) 02:28, November 7, 2013 (UTC)
3. As per my reasoning of my last vote on the matter. His community presence/contributions doesn't warrant another chance at being able to use the chat ever again. His previous track records shows he isn't capable of being able of using the chat within the rules of it. I do believe people can change, but I see no evidence that he has. ^{Hawk da Barber 2012 - BSHU Graduate} 04:40, November 7, 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

I really feel that it is best i stay out of this vote for the moment until i have been a bit more active. ^{"Broadcasting: Retro Radiation King"} 05:03, November 7, 2013 (UTC)

Comments

For those who have voted no thus far, I remind you that Saint has been a continuously active member or our community. He participates in community events, is active on the wiki every day, and has contributed numerous high quality images and edits. He has done everything outside of chat that he can. How can we say he hasn't changed if we won't let him prove he can? ^sectator_apocalypsi 04:45, November 7, 2013 (UTC)

And to those who have voted yes thus far, I remind you that Saint already got one extra chance, regularly responded to his previous bans by yelling power abuse, has serious trouble using the English language when he talks so would break rules without even intending to, and has admitted the he has little intention of using chat and instead just wants the badge that proves he's done wrong to go away. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 05:02, November 7, 2013 (UTC)

If he really has no intention of using the chat, doesn't that actually makes him even less likely to stir up trouble there?
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 10:55, November 7, 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. If he has no intention of using chat why would we need to unban him from chat? JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 20:11, November 7, 2013 (UTC)

Even if he has stated his plans on not coming into chat on a regular basis, he has still made it pretty clear that he does wish to come into chat every now and again. So this is a bit of a null point. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:14, November 7, 2013 (UTC)

To those who have voted no, I do have to ask what sort of behaviour would you expect to see before removing a perma ban? Agent c (talk) 11:35, November 7, 2013 (UTC)

To me this isn't about the short of behaviour we would or wouldn't expect. It;s the fact that Pain, even though he never intended to break the rules, regularly did because it's in his nature and I don't think his nature is going to have changed significantly in this time. He isn't a child coming of age, he's a fully grown man who should have already known better. His inability to communicate in clear English is a issue no matter how nice of a guy he is. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 20:14, November 7, 2013 (UTC)

Regarding his English, Saint Pain has indeed gotten much better and this is proven through his regular editing. A year ago, we were regularly having to follow Saint's edits because of his grammar. As of about 6 months ago, we are no longer having to follow him around, and even his speech in our blogs and forums have gotten much more comprehensible. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:17, November 7, 2013 (UTC)

I find the clear English argument confusing in like of the amount of Dolan like speak already present and resistance to the enforcement thereof. But not really answered my question. Is there any circumstance where you think you could vote to lift any permaban? If the answer is no, then I would have to suggest that anyone who couldn't shouldn't participate as they are unwilling or unable to apply our policies. Agent c (talk) 20:30, November 7, 2013 (UTC)