Forums: Index > Wiki proposals and applications > Request for lifting Saint Pain's chat-ban

This is a request to lift Saint Pain's chat-ban. It is made on my own initiative, Saint never approached my at any time asking for help. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 15:55, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

As most people who frequent chat on a regular basis will remember, a few weeks ago Saint Pain was banned from chat permanently by Victor the Securitron. As I remember it in the logs, it was sort of in general agreement by various mods after some discussion. He had tested the mods nerves one too many times after receiving 1 or 2 chatbans and some warnings in chat. Reviewing the logs when the perma chatban was given, I really didn't think such a ban was in order and I asked around for a bit. In chat I was told about the multiple warnings and seeing as I wouldn't know about that, I trusted the mods judgement of it all.

Still, now we're a few weeks later, and this perma chatban still bothers me. Simply put, I really think Saint Pain deserves at least a last chance. Now as we are coming closer and closer to a day of celebration, 15 years of Fallout and my 100k edit, I feel strong about making this request. It's a day to forgive and (semi-) forget where we can in my view. I do understand we want to keep chat clear of trolls and similar, who are just out to create havoc, but Saint Pain is not such a man. Ok, he's different, told me in XCOM chat yesterday he's an artistic kind of fellow with his own interpretation of words and I understand that can get on people's nerves when you hear to much of it. I admit I have trouble understanding what he means at times. But what's more important, he doesn't really mean to annoy I think. He told me yesterday he didn't even really know why he was permabanned. That shows to me when he's in chat he's acting in good faith. But as said, his character and expression of words can get him in trouble.

So, all in all, we have a good guy here, who's a long time member. Just take a look at his start of membership. That's 2009 and he's still here. Long before most of you and long before me. I know he has been enjoying his time here with lots of contributions and he enjoyed his time in chat and does miss that I know from first-hand. He stayed loyal to Nukapedia and went on editing even after his perma chatban. That shows he feels at home and committed to this community. It saddens me that as it is right now he won't be able to join us in chat tomorrow to celebrate the 15 years of Fallout with the community and when I make my 100k edit. He should be allowed to be there in my opinion.

My request is to at least give him a final chance with a chat lift ban. Leave your vote below and I hope to see voting from the (chat)mods. Please don't make long comments explaining your vote. A yes or no vote, perhaps with a small remark can be enough. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 15:55, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

Lift Saint-Pain's chat-ban and give him a final chance in chat.

The VoteEdit

Poll finished on 5:30 pm October 6, 2012 (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 people's votes.

Yes votesEdit

  • yesIcon check SP should be given another chance. He was nice when i talked to him, and I was there for the final ban. FNV NCR Armor "Respect and Honor" 22:18, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
  • yesIcon check —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexWesker099 (talkcontribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!
    • First edit on account, with the account being made a day after the poll started. Vote does not count. --Skire (talk) 10:51, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
  • yesIcon check Jspoel Speech Jspoel 15:55, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • yesIcon check I had respected the original decision of the chat mods and admins on scene, per policy. The ban as well as its length were up to them. Before that, I had even attempted to argue a change to his ban, but rescinded my arguments. Now that there's a formal appeal I must say that I wholeheartedly support lifting SaintPain's ban. Hopefully all this has changed his overall behaviour for the better, and I never really saw any major offences from him in the first place - just a collection of relatively minor ones. And a final thing, I agree he means no harm. Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. --Skire (talk) 16:37, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • yesIcon check I'm not inclined to make exceptions to the rules, specially since this might send a bad message to the rest of the community. However, I do recognize that an outstanding frequency of contributions, and most importantly, a BC's vote of confidence, should also bear weight. I'm in favor of granting an exceptional pardon for the last offense in light of these circumstances, albeit rather unenthusiastically so. Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪ 18:06, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • yesIcon check The guys asking for another chance & i've seem plenty of times mods made mistakes and made contraversial bans. Forgive & forget makes the world a better place. Peace out & plank on! Plankster (talk) 22:47, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • yesIcon check Please read my thoughts in the comments section. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required!
  • yesIcon check Thanks for all well wishes CupSaintPainThat was broke a'fore I got here deadIcon dead
I'm taking administrative action. Saint, you cannot vote for yourself on a reinstatement request. It isn't necessary.--Bunny2Bubble 08:02, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
  • yesIcon check Not very often we have such good excuses, to grant a 7th chance, i'm not going to miss the opportunity. --Theodorico (talk) 20:02, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
  • yesIcon check Being the very person that banned him, I think Saint was the victim of unfair treatment by me, as well as a ridiculous series of bans that were inconsistent to say the very least. Saint made me very angry on that day I banned him, and I believe I let emotions interfere too much in my decision making. It happens to all of us. Emotions ran high, and impulsive mistakes were made that probably wouldn't have been made if those involved ,specifically myself, had kept a level head. Although I must point out I still feel a ban on that day was necessary, it shouldn't have been a permanent one. But in the spirit of good faith, and friendship, I would like to here formally apologize to Saint for my actions and extend the olive branch of chat rights. I think he deserves one last chance. EDIT: And before I'm called out for hypocrisy or some other trivial thing, it took me a very long time to come to this conclusion. And even now I'm unsure. But I'm going with what my gut is telling me. Saint's contributions don't mean much when it comes to chat, but they count to me. VictorFaceMonitor Might I Say You're Looking Fit As a Fiddle! 03:25, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
  • yesIcon check Saint can be annoying in chat but he's also a valuable member of the wiki and thus should have his chat privileges reinstated. I think sometimes people take things a little too seriously, and this was one of those instances. A lifetime ban is a little extreme for someone who is very obviously the least serious person on here. FollowersApocalypseLogo Apocalypse Now! 03:39, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
  • yesIcon check I have found myself toiling this thought many times over in my mind, and have found myself to come to what I believe a decent conclusion. I remember Saint before his perma ban. I remember he was sure, a bit "different" in light of a better word. But, I can also remember his bans were not from fully mean-spirited content but rather minor infractions of the rules that do in the end add up to bans. Now, I had the chance to spend a few hours with Saint on the celebration of the 15th anniversary and I can whole heartily say, he was a changed man. He sought not to "rub his "friends" in our faces" or to come back and only be a trouble. He sought only redemption for his ill acts in his past. Now, sure he had his 5 chances, and his 6th after that. Under regular circumstances I'd say, "no rules are rules, and you broke them". These are NOT regular circumstances. Here we have a user who continued to help this community, even after we threw him out. But I believe most importantly, he seeks to make up for what he did. This to me is most important. As the Romans would say - Uiuat uiuere; ueniam et obliuionem - Live and let live; forgive and forget. Pardon my terrible google translate. Yours Always;--3 of Clubs "This is my road, you'll walk it as I say" 23:24, October 3, 2012 (UTC)
  • yesIcon check Well you know what they say 7 is a pretty lucky number, besides the guy is just asking for one more chance it's not like he'll end up destroying the entire wiki or something.... PerfectConduit (talk) 11:35, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
  • yesIcon check Although I'm new here, and I have never met either pary on the wiki yet, and have not seen this firsthand, I have read the "Details of the chat ban", and I have come to form the opinion that the infinite ban from chat may be somewhat harsh. I don't see the reason that "Saint" deserves to remain permanantly banned, although, maybe there could be a compromise, and his ban could be shortened? Either way, my opinion is as stated above, "Saint" does not deserve an infinite ban from chat. --Inspired By KFB(Suzon) (talk)
15:11, October 6, 2012 (UTC) Voters must have at least one edit prior to the start of the poll to be eligible to vote. The Gunny  380px-USMC-E7 svg 17:29, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

No votesEdit

  • noIcon cross In light of new evidence brought to my face. I have changed stance. Talking to fellow mods I have been informed of happening and yadda yadda yadda... NOJASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 17:32, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • noIcon cross If we make concessions now then who will we unban in the future based on the fact that "well we did it for Pain"? It is a recipe for earache, and is borderline favourtism, IMO. Who will we "forgive and forget" in the future? Who else will we ignore because they have good edits? To me, it says to people that they will be pardoned of rule-breakings as long as they edit well. Is that really why we want people to edit? I should hope not. In short, concessions now will have ramifications in the future, and we will be found giving out second chances here, there and everywhere because "we did it for this person". --Sign243Talk 16:39, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • noIcon cross He has been banned, AFAIK, a total of FOUR times before he was banned infinitely finally. There is no justice in lifting a ban that should be the final straw. --I am the future of this city! I am the fuckin' king! (talk) 16:51, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • yesIcon check Although Saint can be extremely annoying at times, I don't really feel he needs to be permanently banned. I feel like he is a good member of the community, and if he wants to chat, he should be able to chat. If given his chat rights back, he should be held to strict standards, one more strike, you're gone.
    • noIcon cross After giving this some thought, I've decided to respect the decision of previous mods. Anyone who's been given 5 chances does not need a 6th one. I do remember all those nights of conspiracies aimed at myself as an admin.--Bunny2Bubble 19:36, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • noIcon cross As per my comment Saintpain already had his "one last chance" given to him by ghostavatar; he rewarded us with more bad behaviour - a lot of which we overlooked. Us overlooking his actions was rewarded with allegations of mods being corrupt, and boasts that he had an admin protecting him. No more. Agent c (talk) 18:36, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • noIcon cross I'll stand by my support of the ban, he has broken rules, on several occasions, if this went per policy he would have already been banned prior to this one. I would make no pardon for Tezzla because of his contributions, as I would make no pardon for SaintPain for his contributions; we should never run the habit of giving second chances based upon this, B'Crat support or not. Neko-signature Gothic NekoNeko's Haunt 20:08, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • noIcon cross He's had too many prior chances to shape up, and he hasn't. I stand by the ban.RamboRob196 (talk) 23:00, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • noIcon cross I'm sorry. I have nothing against SP, but if we lift the rules for him, then we have to lift them for everybody. ~ Toci ~ Go ahead, make my day. 22:59, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • noIcon cross No way man. Even asking saint around five times to stop spamming "In the ghetto" he refused to accept that he was doing anything wrong. Then hours later he tried to instigate a problem between me and two other users. I'll be damned if I'm going to vote yes or neutral in this vote. Nobody deserves more chances than saint's had, because I have seen people admit to not kicking or banning him because of one reason or another. Pigeon Approved "Hail to the Pigeon!" 02:00, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
  • noIcon cross Im afraid that saint pain has had far too many chances in the past, we have given him numerous times to "get his act together" when it comes to interacting with the community via chat room. My vote is no because he has been banned in the past and has said things that should not have been said on the chat room, such as accusing all of us mods and administrators of "power abuse" and even insulting others, yes i was not in the chat room dueing the perma ban but im well aware of how he has been in the past. This is no personal vendetta against Saint Pain of course, me personally i have no problem with the man but rules are rules and they must be enforced, Saint refused to follow the rules and he must face the consequences.AaaaaTheNemesisx 06:30, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
  • noIcon cross Given the points I don't believe he should be lifted. 5 chances is absolutely to many. He was given many chances yet he continued to be a naughty child and no body likes a spam chat. People are always trying to spam things here and there and they're banned. He has been banned why should we make an exception for him? Then other would be like; I want a 7th chance or bend the rules for me you did for saint paint. He broke the rules and now he is paying the price. Vault-Tec Circle "Editing With Triple S Technology!" 6:06, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
  • noIcon cross I've given Pain innumerable chances before - slightly biased, I confess - and had I actually prosecuted him as most other users he would be on his 8th or 9th ban by now. He's had more chances than anyone here, I believe, and I feel that this would only work to undermine the policies. Hugs MadeMan2 "Say 'ello to my little friend!"
  • noIcon cross Absolutely not. Saint is not wiki blocked, and that doesn't stop his editing. Besides, the Wiki and chat are two seperate areas. He's had innumerable chances, more than the average person. As far as I am concerned, he's had his second chance. And third. - CC 4 Star Dragon Ball Edit 17:29, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
  • noIcon cross He has been given more chances than anyone here. His contributions to this wiki does not award him another chance, if that was the case quite a few people should be unbanned. Detroit lions Hawk da Barber 2012 - BSHU Graduate 01:20, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
  • noIcon cross Even though this whole situation is unfortunate, he has had one too many times to prove himself capable of not disrupting or acting strange/obnoxious in chat. Charcoal121 (talk) 18:09, October 3, 2012 (UTC)
  • noIcon cross Ya don't seem like a bad person, but cutting some slack now sets an ugly precedent, and after reading the history of the bans Scarface posted, I reckon it's clear ya got plenty of shots already. It's a heck of though call to make, banning a fella that's done so much and obviously don't meant no harm for life, but making though calls is the job of the mods. I've voted no a few times to some great folks' mod requests because I didn't fell they'd make the though one when it was needed, and I'd be one darned hypocrite if tried to undo the mod's though decision now. CharlesLeCheck Icon check 21:05, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
  • noIcon cross Six consecutive chat bans are grounds enough for a permanent ban. Saint cannot be trusted to behave himself properly and unbanning him because a Bureaucrat likes him is simply wrong and warps the system. Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!)

Neutral votesEdit

  • neutralIcon neutral I cannot say yes, no either. Maybe if he proves himself, then he might go back to the chat. Energy X 11:16, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

* neutralIcon neutral I reckon I ain't voting yea nor nae until I figure out precisely what the bans the fella received were for. If the bans can be listed it would be a heck of a help, all the more if the mods responsible for each ban could drop by and enlighten us non-present folks on the context and say their views. CharlesLeCheck Icon check 06:04, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

  • neutralIcon neutral I don't think it will hurt, but I have a hard time understanding anything he says. If he is allowed back in, we have more than enough protection in chat.--Fo2 NCR Flag A Safe People is a Strong People! 18:19, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Details of SaintPain's chat bansEdit

Ban #1Edit

18:15, 13 July 2011 An unknown anonymous user (Talk | block) changed group membership for User:SaintPain from (none) to Banned from chat (Kick/banned from the chat for this wiki by GhostAvatar. Please contact them for more info.) Served 1 day.

  • "I will remove the ban from chat in 1 day, in the mean time I would suggest reading The Vault:IRC channel#Basic rules, as they also apply to chat." User avatar tagUser Avatar talk 22:21, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

From SaintPain's talk page history. The message was removed by SaintPain.

Ban #2Edit

00:53, 29 September 2011 An unknown anonymous user (Talk | block) changed group membership for User:SaintPain from (none) to Banned from chat (Kick/banned from the chat for this wiki by Cartman!. Please contact them for more info.) Served 8 hours.

  • "You have been banned from chat for a period of 1 day (24 hours - too cool down a notch) from the time of banning, for overstepping the rules and regulations of the chat in these/this way: heavily disrupting chat. When the 1 day period has passed, please contact me so that I can lift your ban.
    Note that there are no such things as a premature lifting of a chatban, and that it is not up to you to decide what qualifies as the aforementioned violations against chat policies. Here's some reading until next time. Have a good day, without Vault chat. "04:59, September 29, 2011 (UTC) - Unsigned ban template by Scarface11235.
  • "Who Should I reply to in 24 hours? There is no back address." - Unsigned comment by SaintPain.
  • "Just reply on my talkpage when it's over. I should add it to my template, shouldn't I? Hugs"MadeMan2 "Say 'ello to my little friend!"
  • "I have cooled down the indicated notch
    I do here by "Say 'ello to Scar's little friend!"
    PLease do lift the ban at your at your convenience."
    CupSaintPainLIVE from the Valley O'Death 12:51, September 29, 2011 (UTC)
  • "Extending an olive branch here, it really shouldn't be done yet, but I'm being nice here. You're unbanned." MadeMan2 "Say 'ello to my little friend!"

From SaintPain's and Scarface11235's talk pages. The messages on SaintPain's talk page were removed by SaintPain.

Ban #3Edit

10:48, 16 March 2012 Agent c (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:SaintPain from (none) to Banned from chat (Kick/banned from the chat for this wiki by Agent c. Please contact them for more info.) Served 3 weeks.

  • "You have been banned from chat for 3 days for breaking Rule 7,. Contact Myself or another admin/mod after three days have passed to have your ban lifted. In the meantime, review the guidelines." Sincerely, -- Agent c
  • "Saint, in this I don't think you can say I was anything but fair. You continued to make the claim that the community either doesn't have a say, or it doesn't count, or that the admins steamroll over it. I cannot have you making such statements without proof of their occurrence, its trolling the admin team, and being a dick. I gave you a 2 warnings - others would have only gotten the one, so I haven't banned you for something I wouldn't have banned someone else for.
    However, My offer is still open. If you have a specific issue where the communities voice is overlooked, not present or steamrolled over, I am happy to investigate this for you and try and do something about it. That doesn't mean quote rules or wiki guidelines, it means point me to a page or vote where something has changed in defiance of the community - remember I spoke out against possible changes of the talk policy against community vote. Hit me up on my talk page, and I'll do what I can." Agent c 14:56, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
  • "You asked for specifics.. I provided the specifics of my claim
    Have I been banned by you or some there?
    I received no message saying " By who, for how long "
    Is this a glitch ?"
    CupSaintPainThat was broke afore I got here. 14:57, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
  • "I never said the community voice was over rode.
    I did quote Scar * This is not a Democracy.
    You banned me not because of any claim I made.
    If I said "EVEN ONCE" that the community has been over rode then I would have offensively wrong.
    All I did was quoting wikia and what I saw as a potential to abuse authority.
    It was in fact little more than word play. Democracy vs Republic
    I never said this community's will has been over ruled. So I am not guilty of what I was banned for.
    However, if I count my self honorable, I now see Scar's point.. It is a Republic."
    CupSaintPainThat was broke afore I got here. 15:46, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
  • "Thats just it saint, had you been able to point to something where the community had been overruled, we could say your points were valid. You're not being criticised because you pointed to something - but because you continued to make allegations without being able to do this. People could steal stuff from a shop, but its unfair to go around calling everyone a potential thief.
    You were blocked for comments like this:
    2:12 SaintPain HEhehe now votes are clearly DICKtated ~ Not just ASSumed?
    Okay, actually, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one. Maybe it was a joke that missed its mark.
    2:14 SaintPain They are made by Mods fellow special club members
    Thats not statement of the potential for abuse in the system. You are saying tht some mods have achieved their position by collation or corruption by as you put it "Special club members".
    2:16 SaintPain Members for members let the mods choose them selves " This is not a Democracy" our votes have no voice
    You appear to be saying here the community vote doesn't matter, when the opposite has been shown to be correct. "mods choose themselves" How am I supposed to take this as a theoretical thing?
    2:26 SaintPain Our votes are meaningless
    But they aren't.
    2:46 SaintPain I just know if it "Is a Democracy" Then none regardless of tag should be aloud to say it is not with out challenge.. Democracy only works when members are aloud to be heard
    You appear to be saying here members are not heard - this is patently false.
    You appear to be insinuating that the admin team run this place like a dictatorship and the general member isn't heard... yet in your own words you cant point to a single time that the general member has been overruled by the admin team. I can even offer a counter point - The name, Jspoel was well known for hating it, but there it is." Agent c 17:29, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

From SaintPain's and Agent c's talk pages. The messages on SaintPain's talk page were removed by SaintPain.

Ban #4Edit

22:38, 26 June 2012 GhostAvatarBot (Talk | contribs | block) banned SaintPain (Talk | contribs | block) from chat with an expiry time of 1 day, ends 22:38, 27 June 2012 (Misbehaving in chat) Served 1 day.

  • There are no talk page messages that I can find related to this ban.

Ban #5Edit

23:12, 16 August 2012 Agent c (Talk | contribs | block) banned SaintPain (Talk | contribs | block) from chat with an expiry time of 1 week, ends 23:12, 23 August 2012 (Misbehaving in chat) Agent c reconsidered and removed the ban.

  • "Ban lifted as I decided it was too harsh, but you know darned well that word is sensitive and restricted. I think you might have been trying my patience but I can't be certain, so you get the benefit of the doubt." Agent c (talk) 03:17, August 17, 2012 (UTC)
  • "Help me out here brother.
    I never once misused the word Gay. Just for asking about it in chat is not bad.
    Is Gay a bad word now?
    Is there a new term ? I Thought Gay was the MOST polite.
    I would be willing to apologize if I KNEW WHAT I am accused of.
    Get back with me if you know what I did. Please?"
    User SP Bad Medicine SaintPainLook for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n. 03:24, August 17, 2012 (UTC)
  • "Prior to that comment, you also posted "Gay is as Gay does". I can't see another way of interprenting that in a way that puts it in a good light, and cant see how it was relevenat to the conversation at that point. Your response I felt was trying my patience on that point, but I've given you the benefit of the doubt. The chat ban has been removed." Agent c (talk) 03:27, August 17, 2012 (UTC)
  • "You need to relax
    Gay is not a bad word. Don't abuse you mod "powers"" - Unsigned comment by SaintPain.
  • "I'd appreciate a little more respect to Chad. While we did tell him that we felt your ban was unnecessary, we left it up to him whether or not to lift it. Had Chad not been so lenient, you'd be chat-banned for life. I wouldn't go so far as to call it abuse. You're free to come back into the chat whenever you'd like. There is no need to rub this in Chad's face." ~ Toci ~ Go ahead, make my day. 03:31, August 17, 2012 (UTC)

From SaintPain's, Agent c's any my talk pages. This chat ban was rescinded after Agent c, Tocinoman and myself discussed the ambiguity of Saint's comments judged against the permanent ban that it would result in.

Ban #6Edit

16:34, 18 August 2012 Victor the Securitron (Talk | contribs | block) banned SaintPain (Talk | contribs | block) from chat with an expiry time of infinite, ends 15:34, 20 December 3011 (multiple violations, mostly rules 1, 7, 8, 9 and 10.)

  • "Saint, after multiple users and I reviewed the previous chat session, the chat made a unanimous decision to ban you. Unfortunately for you, that makes that chat session your last. The next ban is infinite. Your offenses included personal attacks to me, whining, spamming music lyrics, and then arguing about being told to stop. In short, you went too far this time. You broke the last straw. I'm sorry for the uncouth message, but this is what it has come too. The chat ban is infinite. And no, this is not power abuse." VictorFaceMonitor Victor the Insane Cowboy Robot 20:38, August 18, 2012 (UTC)
  • "What did I say on chat that calls for a ban ?
    I am kind of sure all past issues had been dealt with.
    Can I at least know who put this ban on ?"
    User SP Bad Medicine SaintPainLook for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n. 20:42, August 18, 2012 (UTC)
  • "Your ban, as per above, was by Vic. DB concurred, and I didn't object to it." Agent c (talk) 20:45, August 18, 2012 (UTC)
  • "I never disrespected you
    I have been a friend to this sight. Your bookends are proof of that.
    Be a good brother and rethink this."
    User SP Bad Medicine SaintPainLook for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n. 20:52, August 18, 2012 (UTC)
  • "No, there is nothing to rethink. You broke the last straw. And I don't have to be polite. I didn't intend to show you I think highly of you, because frankly, I do not. I would never outright insult you, but I try to be polite as a courtesy. Don't use that as a weapon against me." VictorFaceMonitor Victor the Insane Cowboy Robot 21:01, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

From SaintPain's, Agent c's and Victor the Securitron's talk pages.

I have copied the exact words of each message as best I can. The only changes are minor formatting changes that should in no way compromise the content of these messages. The Gunny  380px-USMC-E7 svg 17:23, September 30, 2012 (UTC)


Well Dragonborn, I also do link it with the special day coming up which made me say forgive and forget at this instance. I compare it with a crowning, when the petty theft criminals get a pardon and are released from jail... Jspoel Speech Jspoel 16:49, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

I should wait first to see what he has to say. Energy X 16:52, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

Good enough. I asked him in yesterday in XCOM chat to keep an eye on this thread and comment if necessary. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 16:59, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

DragonBorn raises a very good point. Anyone can call favourites when they can banned if this happens. And while I'm back here, I remember when we gave Yakov "one last chance" that lasted all of 5 minutes before I had to give him the final kick. Again. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 17:19, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

Pain was banned not three, not four, but FIVE times. We all decided on it to ban him permanently. Even staff said his ban should stay. --I am the future of this city! I am the fuckin' king! (talk) 17:25, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, he was banned 3 times, but unblocked once. Here. Of course, only chat mods/admins/bcrats can see that. Energy X 17:30, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

This is incorrect. I thoroughly researched his ban history and reported it in it's entirety here. Not all of Saint's bans show on the chat ban log. The Gunny  380px-USMC-E7 svg 17:51, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the logs Gunny stated were ALL - the chat bans list link I displayed before seems to display chat bans before the Wikia upgrade. Energy X 17:56, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

Even so, my point still stands. If we apply the "three strikes you're out" rule that is widely accepted in most communities, then he should stay banned. --I am the future of this city! I am the fuckin' king! (talk) 17:32, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

Out of interest, should the person who filed the request really be allowed to vote in favour of it? That's like voting on your own Adminship request or high fiving yourself. On a more relevent note; ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it.JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 18:08, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong in the person who filled a proposal voting, a proposal is not the same as a userrights request. Since Js made the proposal himself, he can't take part in the subsequent BC final decision, so he might as well vote on it as a regular user. Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪ 18:21, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Unless the request or proposal pertains or directly affects the one who made it, they can vote freely on it. --Skire (talk) 20:59, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

Saint was told on his fourth ban any further infractions would be a ban for life. Letting him get off after a fifth makes a mockery of the banning system. He claims to have had admins protecting his bad behaviour in the past and I am disapointed to see this boast of his made manifest. Agent c (talk) 18:33, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

I am only responding to this because Jspoelstra specifically suggested it. It is true, I never asked him to make this request as I was sure any thing I could say would be judged as "Whining". I do miss chat and it bothers when I see the chat numbers fall to one member and a mod who may or may not be actively on chat just because I recall the fun I had in those odd hours when it was just me and couple of members killing time and keeping chat alive.

I know many feel strongly about making a bold point but it should be said, there have been some miss perceptions noted.

  • I do not recall ever claiming any thing close to "Quote" He claims to have had admins protecting his bad behaviour " End quote." I'm sure this must just be a misunderstanding.
  • To the best of my recollection the so called warning about "In the Ghetto" was never made by any staff it was just 1 member. So how that should fairly count against me I don't know.
  • The number of bans should likewise be considered, unintentionally exaggerated, because some of those who made the bans later fairly stated they "over reacted" and on top of that, one I recall was Scarface just playing a joke. If you consider word for word what was said in the case of my past bans you can see I never held any intent to cause harm.

I get that some folks don't like my since of humor and it is true I do feel passionately about the opinions I have but I have never acted out with willful hostility or any intentional malice.

  • All I have ever done is try to share some harmless fun and or respectfully express my personal opinions to topics at hand as should be any members right.

I am honestly sorry if anyone ever assumed any of my statements on chat, forums, or talk pages were ever intended to offend.

  • Further I understand some dislike my style of writing. I am not "acting out". As I explained to Jspoelstra, when he approached me with the idea of posting this, I humbly submit that I am an artist/writer by nature and so without "trying to" I often speak in analogies. I do not try to be cryptic. I am just being me.
  • Finally, as I am sure if I said any more I would only make things worse. So If you do deem it reasonable to consider my intent as harmless and allow me to return to chat as Jspoelstra has requested, I will avoid controversial topics on chat and contain such opinions to forums or hold my tongue.

However this turns out, I wish to publicly thank Jspoelstra for opening this topic. I would not have said any more about the ban if not prompted to and I understand it was a risk to his own popularity to show such support and trust.

So I thank you for your consideration and if you require any further response from me please prompt me from my talk page. Beyond that, I leave it in your hands.

User SP Bad Medicine SaintPainLook for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n. 21:10, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

  • I'll be the first to admit that Saint has his eccentric moments. Yet I feel as if his presence here at Nukapedia has always been one of beneficial actions and fun-loving gestures. Saint here is an active editor, he's one of the few editors left here these days that adds images of good quality into our article space, he's very active in our discussions/votes/blogs/forums, (As well as our chat feature until recently.) along with always holding a friendly demeanor when consulting other users and explaining himself. (Although I understand Saint can be hard to understand at times.) In all of my time here, there are only two incidents I can think of that strongly stand out enough to chastise Saint over. His comments on Limmie on her Administrator request, and during his rants over there being too many users here with extra tools. (This was mostly only right after the Split.) The main issue in my opinion is that there are a lot of personality conflicts when dealing with Saint. He words himself strangely at times, and has a habit of bringing up strange topics. Sometimes topics that no one else wants to currently talk about. But in no way have I seen any evidence pointing towards Saint holding any malicious intent(s) towards Nukapedia. Now, usually I'm all for defending our moderators' decisions over chat bans, as I hold the utmost faith in their abilities. But there are times for exceptions, and this is the one and only case I've come across so far that I would call for such an exception to be made. This isn't a case of making an example out of him. Who cares if people reference back to this one and only case? Especially if the users who are complaining are the users who really do deserve chat bans.
    • tl;dr? - I believe Saint is a man with the best intentions at heart. (For the most part.) I don't believe he deserves a permanent chat ban, and I wish to see an exception made for him. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required!
  • I understand that some users here want to give him a second chance. I would like to recommend an option should this actually happen. Since saint has had multiple chances, I think providing him with nothing more, and I mean nothing more would be fair. This means that should Pain even do one thing against the rules, he would be immediately banned instead of kicking him first. Pain has had time to look at the rules and think things over. This would seem like a fair thing should this vote pass. Just my two cents. Pigeon Approved "Hail to the Pigeon!" 03:27, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
    • That's essentially what this forum is. A cry for just one more last chance, looking at the bias nature leading up to his perma-ban. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required!
      • Bias? Bias? What about the Bias that has been for SaintPain? I've given him the benefit of the doubt countless times, and I know I'm not the only one. He's been the recipent of bias in getting an extra ban as it is. Its time to end the bias and enforce the actual rules. Just how many "one last chances" do we plan on giving him?Agent c (talk) 03:33, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
        • You're right. Saint has been kicked/banned from chat multiple times. But all for extremely minor matters from what I've seen. If a Moderator felt it was right to perma-ban him? Then I support that. But now a vote has been put up to gain community consensus on whether this ban should stay. Personally, I feel as if a perma-ban is too much. As for the bias nature of his perma-ban, I am referring to the quote of Vic's that was referenced by Sigma. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required!
          • The sentence is completely secondary here - The sentencing guidelines are clear, ban 4 is life. There is no guideline for ban 5 because you don't get one, unless you're name is saintpain, and then when you do it doesn't matter because someone will call to repeal it anyway. What happens on ban 6? We ban him for life again only to have it repealed again? This is complete bullshit. 03:42, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
            • I guess that's the problem then: we're acting off of mere guidelines. Not any real set in stone policies. Maybe I'm missing something by hardly ever being in chat. I just personally haven't seen anything incriminating to justify a permanent anything against his character. For me, it's not a matter of holding Saint over the law. I'm just trying to make sense of why an exception shouldn't be made for his sake. Call it ignorance of the situation for now. Maybe a detailed report of his previous bans is necessary here. Gunny provided a condensed report, but it doesn't really explain much. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required!
              • Wait, Garoux, what quote? --Skire (talk) 03:45, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
  • The one over Vic saying how much he hated Saint after the ban was enacted. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required!

( In any case, on ban 4 he was told by GhostAvatar that was it, and if he was ever banned again that was life. By removing this ban - or even considering it, we're undermining this, as well as the authority of the entire mod team. Each time you get a ban, its a message to shape up or ship out. What happens next time? Does he get banned until a burecreat acts in his favour and throws out the guidelines for a third time? The ban was agreed by the 3 mods on at the time, and was later agreed with GhostAvatar who advised us of his previous final warning. Agent c (talk) 03:55, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I remember reading that somewhere. Well, if that's the case, it seems to me this is something that the bureaucrats need to talk over thoroughly. Including Ghost. If only he hasn't disappeared. >.> ForGaroux Some Assembly Required!
There WAS bias. You heard it from the source. I was unfair in my judgement. VictorFaceMonitor Might I Say You're Looking Fit As a Fiddle! 03:36, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

Just to recount the events that lead to this situation. The day before Saintpain was banned, I did ban him, as the 5th ban this would have been life if it stood (the statement I banned him for was ""Gay is as Gay does" - still not entirely sure what this is supposed to mean, and Pain has refused every invitation I've given him to explain it). In confrence following this it was agreed between myself and the other admins on that there were other ways of reading his statement, and the ban was removed.

He was actually banned the next day after I kicked him for a different offence, in vics words this was "Your offenses included personal attacks to me, whining, spamming music lyrics, and then arguing about being told to stop.". I was then informed by two other moderators that as he had already been kicked that day, they were about to ban when I did the kick. After a confrence we agreed that a second kick in a day would ordinarily result in a ban. As such, Victor then enacted the ban, with the support of myself, and Dragonborn96. Agent c (talk) 03:31, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

I can actually explain that, as I was there for part of the conversation involved. I don't have proof, but I haven't lied about anything yet, and I don't plan on starting now. There was discussion over what actions should be taken against users who used the word "" in chat. I joined chat right after Saint was first kicked. I made it quite clear that the only time someone should be kicked/banned for using that word is if it was meant as a direct insult against any person and/or group. I am not one for political correctness, and no one should be banned just for saying a word as a casual joke or for flavour material. When Saint joined back in shortly, he asked why he was kicked, and was then banned when he asked what was so wrong about using the word "" in the way that he did. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required!

That was the first ban Leon, the one that was recinded. I'm still waiting for an explanation as to what "Gay is as gay does" means. Agent c (talk) 03:39, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'm not so sure about that particular incident, then. Would there happen to be any logs that I could review? Maybe I could make sense of the situation. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required!
I recall the incident clearly, as it was I that discussed it with Agent c. This was the day before the events that led to his permanent ban. We discussed the ambiguity of Saint's remark and Agent c decided that since the result would be a permaban, that he would remove the ban in lieu of clear intent to break the rules. This ban, his 5th, should not be, and as far as I know, was not, considered in the resulting permaban on his 6th offense. This is all detailed in my message to Js. It's clear that I need to repost that message here, and also dig up the talk page messages relating to those bans so everyone can be completely informed on the issue. I will do that as soon as I can. I want people to be completely aware of everything we can possibly bring to bear in this situation, so they may make an informed decision. The Gunny  380px-USMC-E7 svg 15:10, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

I did not mean to rejoin this conversation but reading Agent c's comments above, I think I might might have a solution.

Agent c claims I refused to explain my line "Gay is as gay dose". I never noticed any such request until tonight.

  • I will now answer, " Gay is not a dirty word. I never used it as a slur or curse against anyone here or even as a judgement to any ones life style.
  • Life is to short for me to pre judge folks for what they like.

Gay is as gay dose is like "water flows as the river goes" or "Wind blows as the breeze streams."

It was play on words. No insult, no slur not judgement. Just a play on words.

  • If this was the grounds of my ban, I respectfully request it not be held against me as it should never have been an issue.

Agent C and or Victor could have used my talk page at any time if they doubted my intent.

I never challenged their sentence on me because I did not wish to be accused of "Whining" But if this is the grounds of it then I do not see their case.

Still it is up to our Staff. So, I say again, even though, in light of this revaluation, I do not feel I should have been band. If allowed to rejoin chat I would still keep to the promise I made, " I will redouble my efforts to avoid controversy on chat and reserve my more heart felt opinions for blogs and such.

    • Chat should be a place for editors and the community at large to relax, have fun and share in peace. I believe that and if allowed, I vow to try & represent it.

User SP Bad Medicine SaintPainLook for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n. 05:23, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

Two thoughts to ponder:

1) "an artistic kind of fellow with his own interpretation of words" - So will eventually anything be permissible, if an "artistic interpretation" of words the rest of the world agrees upon is allowed to be used as an excuse for anything?

2) This person seems to change moods with the wind, one moment being amiable and the next offensive. To euphemise, is such a "mercurial" personality with what appears to be no self control when in a bad mood going to be allowed as a perpetual excuse for dubious behaviour? GlassDeviant (talk) 08:40, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

"Gay is as gay does" is not the statement you were ultimately banned for, it is the statement from the day before that you were banned for but I removed on further admin discussion. Your explanation for this "joke" does you no benefit... What exactly does a gay "do" in this joke as it now more than ever seems derogitary, ora spammy non sequitur. Agent c (talk) 10:28, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record following this, this was left on your TP:

Prior to that comment, you also posted "Gay is as Gay does". I can't see another way of interprenting that in a way that puts it in a good light, and cant see how it was relevenat to the conversation at that point. Your response I felt was trying my patience on that point, but I've given you the benefit of the doubt. The chat ban has been removed. Agent c (talk) 03:27, August 17, 2012 (UTC)

I also asked you for an explanation for its meaning on your return to chat, you responded "it's Alrite, everyone makes mistakes". So, in short; you were asked to translate you "artistic" statement, and chose not to respond until now.Agent c (talk) 10:34, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

May I also state that I find the notion of article contributions being weighed in for this request to unban perplexing. It has been stated, time and time again, by numerous staff members and users that the chat is a separate entity from the wiki, it has a specific set of rules and moderators to oversee that. But, now there is some strange bridge being formed between the two, treating both as if they are now one and the same and have always been as such. It is in my opinion that users need to decide whether they take the chat as a separate entity, at which contributions outside of that play a minnow if irrelevant role, or whether they will treat both as the same thing; contradicting many votes and arguments from previous fora. Neko-signature Gothic NekoNeko's Haunt 17:20, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

If this goes through does that mean we'd be allowed to have any banned person back? Because I'd quite like to have Luckman back, he deserves as much as a second chance to come back to the wiki as Pain does to come back to the chat (more so I'd say). JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 18:46, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

Dudes, why be on the guy's case so much? The guy says it's all misunderstanding, why not another chance? Unforgiveness is a burden shared by two. Wasn't Dead Money about "A chance to begin again" and "Learn to let go"? Forgive & forge is the name of the game, it frees us so we can all be best we can be. (cool) Plank on! Plankster (talk) 19:47, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

We can't forgive and forgoe someone who has broken our rules 5 times. Simply because the accused calls it a misunderstanding does not make it a misunderstanding.--Bunny2Bubble 19:48, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
No Misunderstanding. He broke the rules 5 confirmed times, and countless others that we let slide. How many "Extra chances" do you feel is fair? If I may quote you, "to be a leader sometimes you got to be a bad ass", and that means enforcing the rules. Agent c (talk) 19:51, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
Dude, aren't you breaking the rules right now 2BH5ing? Yet nobody's on your case. To be a bad ass means sometimes to let go for the good of all, is all I'm saying man. I guess I'm just always trying to look for the good in people & to try to help them being better for their sakes and ours and everone elses. Just throwing my 2 bottlecaps around, not saying your bad for thinking the way you do. Respect always, resent never. That's the way of the badass. Sorry if I'm being inopportune, I'm off to Florida and won't be back for a week, so I'm trying to get things in order before going. Dudes and dudettes, plank on! Plankster (talk) 20:17, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
which rule do you feel I am breaking? As for the good of all, pain is one man. The number of people who have complained to me about his antics and comments after mods are asleep, is more than that. Agent c (talk) 20:29, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
Dude not you, Bear-man. There's a blog on the front page talking about signatures and dude's got a huge ass signature and with 2 images. That's 2 infractions and coming from and admin on top of that. But nobody's on his case for that. Not saying they should be either, all I'm saying we're all humans & make mistakes. Some more than others, but a human is a human and not everyone can be the ultimate badass. So why pick on him? Not boss at all man. But I don't really have a stake in this dude, don't know jack about the man, just throwing my 2 bottlecaps here for whatever's it worth. Sometimes you gotta be outside to see the whole picture. That's my view on it, take it or leave it or sell it for cheap (cool). Plank on! Plankster (talk) 20:53, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
Thats just it Plankster, we don't pick on him. Quite the opposite, a lot of us have admitted to treating pain with kid gloves in the past and have given him more chances than we have given anybody else. The question you should be asking instead, is why are we picking on everyone else who has a permaban? Agent c (talk) 20:55, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

( The nature of this case is, as I've mentioned before, very unique. No other long-time user of the chat who is perma-banned is quite the same as the case with SaintPain. If we were to have a chat ban appeal for anyone else who is indefinitely expelled from the chat, I'm sure they will have very few, if any, supporters. There is question as to whether or not his words are malicious, as well as the overall severity of his actions. That is the reason why there are those who want to give him a final chance, to see for sure whether he will change his behaviour or not. If he gets into trouble again, how many would support him then? --Skire (talk) 21:03, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

Indeed Sigma, I agree, who would support him after he used up his final chance. Strange thing is, we know the answer to that question because he already had it - twice. Agent c (talk) 21:27, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

And that's a good point, but those previous "second chances" are less well-known that this one, which has the entire wiki involved. This can assure you, that assuming it passes (which I'm a little doubtful of), there is absolutely no way he will be given yet another chance. If he oversteps the line again, just ban him. That will be the end of it. We are giving him a grand, one last chance, and everyone knows it, to change his behaviour for the better. --Skire (talk) 21:31, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

I am generally nonplussed as to why we are giving him this so called "last chance". We gave him that "one last chance" before and he blew it. He has been banned so many times before. Just keep him banned. --I am the future of this city! I am the king! (talk) 00:36, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

He's already been unbanned earlier. Continuing the discussion is kinda pointless. UserGreatMaraMessage 00:43, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
It was a temporary unban. The voting is still in progress, AFAIK. --I am the future of this city! I am the king! (talk) 00:46, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
Mara, that was in light of Fallout's joyeux anniversaire as well as Jspoel's 100,000th edit. In a few hours, if it hasn't ready, his ban will be reinstated and he will wait upon the decision of this poll. --Skire (talk) 00:49, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

After reviewing all if the given data at hand, the permaban seems justified. We really cannot simply unban you and pray that you don't get yourself banned again and leave us with mud on our faces. The history speaks for itself so to speak.--Kingclyde (talk) 21:33, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

( A lot of Saint Pain's chat history has been brought up here, explaining and justifying his perma chat-ban. Of course, that's important. But when I made this request, I also took into account what he did after that. He didn't really complain, while if I had seen an appeal from him I wouldn't haven been surprised. He accepted it and went on to be a part of the community with every day a few edits and images. Now like Sigma says, I think this is a special case. I can't remember anyone like Saint, a member with many contributions and still contributing even after a perma chat-ban. All chat-bannees just have a few edits and disappear from the scene or try to circumvent bans and vandalize. So Saint is in that prospect very much different. Saint has heart for the game and always enjoyed being a part of this community, especially in chat I think. I'm having a rather hard time seeing those rights taken away forever and deny him this bit of daily enjoyment. He's not a bad guy, means well and has held up well with during these last few days which must be stressful for him. I just feel he deserves a last chance to show he has changed and using his own words, can 'play nice' himself. Lastly, I invite you to read Victor's words about Saint's ban. Adding that up to everything should count for something too I hope for your decision. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 23:01, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

J, with respect, what happens to the next chat permaban? Do we tell them "go edit some articles, upload some images and all is forgiven?" This builds a door I don't think we want to see opened. I'm happy to consider some sort of "review" or permabans, but serving a few weeks I don't think is enough.. Had this been raised this time next year, I'd be more inclined to vote yes. Agent c (talk) 23:26, October 3, 2012 (UTC)
Does that mean you'd be inclined to accept a downgrade of the punishment from permanent to say a year? Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪ 02:01, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
No, it means I support a measure being put in place for anyone who has been permabanned - chat or Wiki - to have this reviewed after 12 months of good behaviour (if its chat) or no attempts to circumvent (if its wiki). What I do not endorse is a system that says "If you get permabanned in chat, just go edit a few pages, upload a few images, and we'll forgive you", nor a system that allows one person (continued) special treatment. Agent c (talk) 02:26, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, if they are perm banned (chat or wiki) how can they have a fair review of good behavior in 12 months? That makes little sense. I am all for reducing it down to 1 year. J does bring up a good point. He isn't one of those fly by night 1 or 15 edit users that only do chat and then fly off the handle, he's been an editor for awhile and while his personality is a little rough, to be honest some of the people here can get the same way. Maybe not to the same but in the instance if ban #5, I've seen that word thrown around by other admins plenty of times even when Chad was present. I am changing my recommendation under reevaluation to a reduction in ban length to one year.--Kingclyde (talk) 04:27, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
I can agree with the ban being reduced to a single year. Saint has always proved to have the wiki's best interests in mind from what I've seen, and I feel that continued perfect behaviour should be taken into account after a calm period has passed. I can understand others' frustrations, as I'm sure they see this as undermining their authority, but I really do feel as if certain actions against Saint in the past have been a tad harsh. We've already had 3 bans confirmed to have been a mistake, and the other legitimate bans are very very minor. The only one that I saw that would really justify a perma-ban after continued behaviour would be the instance in which he was spamming song lyrics. (And the supposed personal attacks. Although, no one has explained to me what was involved with these personal attacks from Saint.) As for everything else, the bans seem to revolve around misinterpreted jokes - which Saint has admitted to being in bad taste either way - and getting on everyone's nerves because of eccentric opinions regarding who should get extra tools, etc. I have no doubt that I'm not getting the entire picture here, as I'm usually not in chat when these incidents occur, but I personally haven't seen enough in my opinion to justify a permanent chat ban. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 04:37, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

The way I see it, Clyde, Pain wasnt banned for saying the word "gay" he was banned for how he said it. Context plays a huge part in this. "I saw a gay couple the other day; super cute!" would be okay but "Man this cereal tastes gay" wouldnt. Pain still hasnt gone as far as to say what "gay is as gay does" actually means; all we know so far is that it's a joke, whoch does little to help his case. It'c cryptic and could easily be take the wrong way, if I were to come in to chat and randomly say "Being gay is like being hit by an icecream truck" I wouldnt expect people to take that lightly, yeah it could be intrepterted to mean something good and maybe it was a joke, but as far as I remember offencive jokes are still jokes, if people could just post JK after every racist, homophobic, sexist or otherwise offencive comment and make it okay we'd still have Yakov chilling in chat.

the bans seem to revolve around misinterpreted jokes - which Saint has admitted to being in bad taste either way— GarouxBloodline, ^right there^

I fail to see how just saying "Yeah, they were in bad taste" is good either. I could harrass people and as long as I go "yeah, you got me I WAS being racist. Good work." I should be able to be unbanned later? If they're in bad taste and we interpreted them as being in bad taste then they werent misinterpreted, maybe we didnt get to know thier exact meaning but bad taste is as bad taste does after all.
Even is we ignore how offencive it may or may not have been rule 10 (spamming) says:

Meaningless and/or random posts can also be considered spam— Rule 10 (spamming) Chat Rules

and seeing as, looking at the ban, Chad did say it was unrelated to the in chat topic. From personal experience I can tell you that alot of what Pain posts in chat doesnt make sense, we dont allow Scarface to tallk in swedish or Tag to talk in Polish so why is it okay for Pain to speak in Painish?

This often includes, but is not limited to; excessive usage of capital letters, punctuation marks, deliberate distortions of the English language— Rule 6 (trolling), Chat rules

Being an artistic guy doesnt justify that. If we cant understand a word he types and when we do we're misinterpreting it to be offencive then having him in chat is hassle. His artsy speak is like do a tango through a minefield, sure it looks pretty but it'd be safer, cleaner and just plain easier for everyone else if you walked through normally and watched your step.
As said before a number of times, chat =/= the wiki. You could be a brilliant editor but if you're foul mouthed, agressive and to be frank (Rule 7: dont be) a dick then that doesnt even out. Okay so pain makes some pretty pictures. So? That does nothing to tell us how his behaviour in chat would be different, he's been here long enough to know the rules and how they work, if he can't talk in a way that doesnt break them then that's his problem, not ours. It's certainly not fair on other chat banees, I'm sure many of themm would have added more images than Pain can swing David Bowie at if they had access to the GECK but because they dont they have a worse punishment?
JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 11:24, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry where are these 3 mistaken Ban. Last I checked he still had 5 valid bans - Remember even though Vic has recanted his ban, Pain still would have been banned that day - Were I not quicker on the kick than the ban (or not present in chat), Fraze would have banned him; Had I been aware of the earlier kick that day, I would have banned him.

Also, why are we giving Pain special treatment we would not give anyone else? If you want to let pain off because he edits and posts a few pictures then I insist that we create a policy to deal with this situation. I insist that we have a policy that tells us exactly how many edits need to be done and images uploaded to earn clemency - After all we do have edit count requirements for any other upward user rights change. Why are we again giving Pain special treatment after all the special treatment the admin and mod team have admitted to giving him in the past? I am still waiting for an answer to this.

Anything we do for pain must be done in a way that anyone else can claim it. We have to be fair to everyone. If you want pain in today, be ready to open the door to anyone else who asks. If you want pain to be reviewed, you must allow anyone else who has been banned to be reviewed. Agent c (talk) 13:21, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Why is this even discussed? A person with six consecutive chat bans shouldn't even be considered for letting back in. Equal standards without favoritism, please. Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 15:54, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you guys didn't get the whole point about him not being able to rectify himself whilst being banned in order to be reviewed. That goes for anyone else who is banned. So the whole point of "fair reviews for good behavior" as Chad put it makes no sense. At this point I do not know why this senseless arguing is still going on being that the votes are what matters here. Speak with you votes people!--Kingclyde (talk) 19:55, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

How exactly is "good behaviour" shown when the banned user cannot even enter chat? --Skire (talk) 19:58, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Good behaviour can be shown elsewhere on the wiki, off wiki, etc. My suggestion for a formal review process his here. However, I can't see how anyone can be in favour of pain getting an extra chance, if that is not being extended to others. Its just simply not fair. Agent c (talk) 20:00, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Alright but I just think it is very hard to assess "good behaviour". Chat and the wiki are separate, so I disagree with how "good behaviour" on the wiki should affect a user's ban status in chat. --Skire (talk) 20:03, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
That's my point, most people who are banned in chat get banned on the wiki as well. They cannot prove themselves anywhere. If you cannot get back into chat you cannot prove yourself. For the time I was in chat when Pain was there during the festivities he seemed ok. I got like 3 different request from people wanting me to kick him because they didn't want to. Kinda thought that was weird but so be it. Point is if they can't be in chat, they can't prove themselves and thus cannot have a fair review on good behavior. Nuff said.--Kingclyde (talk) 20:09, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
I had also spent some time with Pain during the celebrations and he seemed very fine, and glad to be back in chat, albeit temporarily. Unless they are blatant trolls, a chat ban should never result in a wiki ban. --Skire (talk) 20:12, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

( It's not I made this request because I specifically like or can get along with Saint well. It may just even be the opposite if I were to meet him in real life. I'm a down to earth man while Saint is the opposite with his eccentric character. So I think we would clash there. I based it more and what I've seen from him outside of chat, his edit history, but mainly on how he's behaved after his chat-ban the 18th of August. He was banned outside of chat and barely even protested. After that he didn't show any sign of spite or quit the wiki like almost all permachat bannees do. I can't come up with another example like him. He went on editing. Not because he thought he had some chance it would help him to get back in chat, but because he kept caring for the wiki and its community. You've got to respect him for that. I do anyway. And in the past week he's showed he really wants to improve and shape up. I don't know, I just find it very strange to see an infinite chatban bar next to the name of such a long time member who's done a lot of good for the wiki. Ok, he messed up in chat and doesn't get a permaban without reason. But I continue to feel not entire justice is done yet, with this man whose intentions are not bad at heart, being blocked from chat forever. That's just too hard a punishment in my opinion in this unique case. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 14:40, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate what you are saying J, however Pains ban is unique in other ways. He's unique in already being given an extra chance by ghost. He's unique in that mods and admins have confessed to going easy on him, etc.
by even looking at this, a door has been built, and now we must controll who can come through it. Everyone can claim a unique card: tezzla has more article edits than most admins have total edits, was effected by losing 4 admin requests, had his young age/immaturity/hormones to blame. Luckmann has the controversial nature of his ban to play. If they have both "changed" and could show history of good wiki edits on another wiki, would you be in favour of removing their bans? Agent c (talk) 14:55, October 5, 2012 (UTC)
I don't have a real argumented answer to that. When I made the request I didn't think about Tezzla or Luckmann. Mainly I've considered Saint's record outside of chat and how he acted after his ban. He's not a man of malice. The other two have shown that, be it vandalizing the wiki of having it at heart. They hurt the wiki too much already in my opinion and I wouldn't be in favor of letting them back. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 16:20, October 5, 2012 (UTC)
I talk to Lucky on skype, I, and many other, can tell you he's changed. And if we have to take your word for Pain having changed then out of equal respect you should do the same for me. Lucky isnt a bad man at heart, he just has views most people dont like, without going to far off the topic of Pain you cant ban Lucky for what he did anymore than you can blame Tag for his Fallout 3 hate or a Christian for posting a picture of a cross with "Jesus loves me" under it on thier profile.

Lucky isnt the issue here, nor is Tezzla (who one could also argue has changed, in fact giving his age and the time since he was last seen that's more likely than Saint having changed; old dogs, new tricks). Bad people do good things and good people do bad things, but because someone has a good heart doesnt justify what they do. You dont let a "nice guy" off the hook for shop lifting or drunk driving and if you do then you must do the same for the not so nice people.
Pain is nothing special. End of. No number of posts or picture will make up for that.
JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 17:45, October 6, 2012 (UTC)


Well, the votes have been cast and the results are in. Unfortunately, his ban remains in place as his repeal did not pass. I'm sorry Pain but in another year time, you can apply to have you ban repealed again.--Kingclyde (talk) 20:08, October 6, 2012 (UTC)