 |
This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes. |
|---|
Hello all, I am Achilleus. I am a newer user here but have followed the wiki for a long time. During some investigating of my own into the administration policies I came across a section titled "Reviews of permanent blocks or chat bans (AKA the "SaintPain" rule)" I am asking that we remove the section of "(AKA the "SaintPain" rule)" from the policy.
Reasoning[]
Now, I do understand that he is part of the reasons for this policy and can understand some administrative views towards this user and what he did in the past. However, after reading his talk page I saw many users who actually had fond memories and good relationships with SaintPain and there was a great amount of positivity with his past.
With his passing last year, I feel we should remove his name from this section. This is all out of respect. I feel by having his username there we are disrespecting SaintPain by having him look like a expelled pariah even after his death, which was not the case. Many users had kept in touch with him all the way up to his passing and a lot more were saddened by it.
I also believe that by having his name there we are allowing users to look more at SaintPain's faults and his moments of bad judgement rather than his more positive moments during his time on this wiki.
To end this proposal, let us look at this as letting the man rest into the history text like us all and allow ourselves to move on knowing in his own way he helped our users create better policies and guidelines.
Postscript[]
If it turns out that before his passing he was in FAVOR of calling this policy by the name it is, please disregard all of this. I have searched and found no evidence of this (not to say there isn't any). Thanks again for reading my proposal. 
That's why no one will remember your name... 05:40, August 30, 2018 (UTC)
Comments[]
I agree. Casper deserves a better memorial than always being remembered as an exception to the rules. 寧靜 
06:31, August 30, 2018 (UTC)
Idisagree completely. The name is there as a mark of respect and a permanent memorial to the good work he put in. He was the first - and to date the only person to meet the standard required.
The SaintPain Rule is not an exclusionary rule. It is a sign and symbol for those prepared to put in the work that redemption is possible.
Being allowed to re-enter isn’t being branded a pariah. Quite the opposite. I think this suggestion is based on a misguided reading. Agent c (talk) 10:01, August 30, 2018 (UTC)
I have no particular opinion about this issue because I have neither known nor interacted with SaintPain. Instead I will respond to your postscript, just as a clarification (and not in an attempt to discuss anything).
Looking at the revision history of the administration policy, the rule was renamed on 2017-08-01 while SaintPain passed away on 2017-07-29. I think we can conclude that the rule was renamed posthumously.
- FDekker talk 10:28, August 30, 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you FDekker.
That is some of the type evidence I was looking for mentioned in my Postscript. In that case, I guess we can disregard my proposal and toss it. I don't believe I can delete or lock this so I will ask for this to be dismissed. That's why no one will remember your name...
- Unless I misunderstood you, isn't this evidence exactly the opposite of the evidence required for you to toss out the proposal?
- FDekker talk 22:14, August 30, 2018 (UTC) - I will message you directly. That's why no one will remember your name... 23:10, August 30, 2018 (UTC)
- Unless I misunderstood you, isn't this evidence exactly the opposite of the evidence required for you to toss out the proposal?
- FDekker, you did not misunderstand this. I misunderstood your response and evidence. That fault is mine and mine alone. I am still opposed to the naming of this policy and would like to see reasoning for naming this policy as such. I agree with Janaschi's response, I feel he deserves a better memorial than a "hey he was a bad user but he changed his ways" as in my eyes putting his name there really only alludes to the fact he is WAS such. I could see if it was a policy more like "Do not make tedious edits that a bot can do "aka the Achielleus rule" (bad example, but I digress). That kind of rule says "hey, don't bother doing what the bots can do for you, Achilleus did much of this and was overworked". That is more a positive showing. It says that worker even bothered to do edits that were almost too tedious but he tried" but with the policy we are talking about it really only shows that at one point in his time here SaintPain was on the "wrong" path. It only shows this. There are better memorials than such. But once again, this is my interpretation, and I am entitled to this. In response to Agent C's response, how is it a misguided reading? “"Being allowed to re-enter isn’t being branded a pariah."”
- Not necessarily, but it does say this user WAS a bad user, and we, as a community, know that most people here take things at face value and with a grain of salt. If I were a new user and saw this I would think of SaintPain as more of a bad user than good. And unlike most users just starting out, I was able to do the research on him and find out he was a rather decent guy. That's why no one will remember your name...
- Casper was a good user. He did not have a reputation as a "bad" user at any point. He was a great contributor for a long time here, images were his specialty as I remember. He was a very unique guy and had a distinct way of talking, but was, to my knowledge, not disliked by anyone. What he did do was have trouble communicating with people at times, as his unique style of communication was hard for many to follow. He ended up getting chat banned a number of times because he liked to spam song lyrics, if I recall correctly. Not because he was a serious behavioral problem. The whole reason why we changed the rule was for him to have a chance to get back in chat. 4 times he was banned by a strict interpretation of the rules, and by guidelines he was perma on his last. But that punishment didn't really fit the crime, so to speak. It was way too harsh for what he actually got in trouble for. Those of us who knew Casper, a fellow veteran who suffered from health issues related to his service, understood that. We created this rule specifically for him and any like him so they may have a chance to wipe the slate clean. I don't think at all that it does a disservice to his memory. I can say this very personally, as I clearly have his memory in me. I still remember the night I found out he had died. I would far rather memorialize him with a rule that allows for redemption and grace than allow his memory to be buried on a talk page no one would ever see. The ONLY reason you know about him, and we can share these memories with you is because of that rule. Without that being named after him, you would have never heard of him. The Gunny
02:09, August 31, 2018 (UTC)
- Casper was a good user. He did not have a reputation as a "bad" user at any point. He was a great contributor for a long time here, images were his specialty as I remember. He was a very unique guy and had a distinct way of talking, but was, to my knowledge, not disliked by anyone. What he did do was have trouble communicating with people at times, as his unique style of communication was hard for many to follow. He ended up getting chat banned a number of times because he liked to spam song lyrics, if I recall correctly. Not because he was a serious behavioral problem. The whole reason why we changed the rule was for him to have a chance to get back in chat. 4 times he was banned by a strict interpretation of the rules, and by guidelines he was perma on his last. But that punishment didn't really fit the crime, so to speak. It was way too harsh for what he actually got in trouble for. Those of us who knew Casper, a fellow veteran who suffered from health issues related to his service, understood that. We created this rule specifically for him and any like him so they may have a chance to wipe the slate clean. I don't think at all that it does a disservice to his memory. I can say this very personally, as I clearly have his memory in me. I still remember the night I found out he had died. I would far rather memorialize him with a rule that allows for redemption and grace than allow his memory to be buried on a talk page no one would ever see. The ONLY reason you know about him, and we can share these memories with you is because of that rule. Without that being named after him, you would have never heard of him. The Gunny
If the rule was an exclusionary rule, or a prohibitive rule (like the bot example) then I would agree that the name would be inappropriate (and we’d never allow that to stand).
I say your reading is misguided/misinterpreted because you seem to keep reading it that way. The rule is an inclusionary rule, and a rule that allows redemption. Just as the Story of the “Miracle on Ice” isn’t “The US Ice Hockey team is a bunch of losers”, the story of this rule, and it’s name isn’t “SaintPain was a bad guy” - you can only get that conclusion by stoping the story part way through. It’s a story of redemption and naming the rule than enables redemption to be recognised is appropriate for that. Agent c (talk) 13:34, August 31, 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 17:11, August 31, 2018 (UTC)
I think we can close this discussion considering that its author has withdrawn the proposal.
- FDekker talk 01:05, September 1, 2018 (UTC)