Topic on User talk:Blazikeye535

Why the vote is removed? Bans are not meant to stop user’s vote, not to mention that the ban is done after the vote, which should not affect it at all. I wish a clear explanation on why the vote is crossed out.

You pretty much just answered your own question; it's because he's now banned. There's absolutely no point in counting votes from banned users since they no longer have any say in what happens anymore.

I agree that they “no longer” have any say on what happens anymore, but the fact is that MBF voted before the ban, so it should be counted. I would like to say that bans are meant to stop a user’s disruptive behaviors, not to cross out their opinions. Your cross of vote is also confusing for outside observers, since you simply uses the tag to cross the vote, without any explanation below the vote to clarify that the vote is crossed out by you. @Raidarr for resolution.

I did the same thing for another active RfC over a day ago. If Raidarr had a problem with that, he would’ve undone my edit by now.

You didn’t explain anything about my concern. First, the removal of vote is incorrect per my comments above. Second, you didn’t clarify that the vote is crossed out by you below the vote with a comment.

Even if I didn’t cross out the votes, they’re still invalid regardless due to him putting up nonexistent arguments. If there’s someone who is concerned with why one specific vote is crossed out (which is highly unlikely considering how trivial this is), they can view the page history. The fact that you’re making a massive deal over something so trivial just goes to show that you really need to find something better to do.

Due to the fact it's just crossed out, I don't feel strongly about changing it. I felt MBF's impact was very minimal in the first place as he was largely uninvested in the wikis and quite clearly spoofed his edit count to make the numbers higher, on top of an argument that lent it no more impact. I probably wouldn't have crossed it out myself though, and taken it in context as I would most other votes.

The way I'd like to see this done (+ the way doug discussed with me about assessing it and how I've been suggesting to the other bureaucrats) means there will be a lot of weight on the people who have more impact in the vote anyway - strong contributors who made the wiki the way it is + anyone who makes a more eloquent point. I'm inclined to give users from both groups a chance to help reform the wikis; if that fails, closure. I'm tempted to make the close on this basis soon due to having background with what Doug was thinking on this, after discussions with the other QP bureaucrats and in the interest of getting this done in a way that offers all chances.

I also don't think crossing out the ban was necessary, since just because he is banned doesn't mean his opinions suddenly don't count. Bans are intended to prevent disruption, and are not a form of punishment.