All The Tropes Wiki Project, Part XXII

[Bob Schroeck]

Saw that, no prob. And given the user name, I suspect we'll need to watch "I add complete monsters", if they don't turn out to be a drive-by.

[LulzKiller]

We do autoapprove users' userspace sandbox edits right?

[robkelk]

We do autoapprove users' userspace sandbox edits right?

As long as they aren't breaking the law, yes. And it's their own sandbox.

[robkelk]

I just added to the list at All The Tropes:Frequent Redlinks ... and discovered a new feature.

After copying the link to the "what links here" page for GMs, I pasted it into the add-a-link dialog box - and the software offered to change it into the equivalent internal link for me. Of course I said yes.

[Bob Schroeck]

Quick question for anyone who might know: not long back I collapsed the little slide-out panel that let me patrol new pages to get it out of the way for a moment, and now I can't figure out how to get it back. Any suggestions, anyone?

Thanks.

[LulzKiller]

Quick question for anyone who might know: not long back I collapsed the little slide-out panel that let me patrol new pages to get it out of the way for a moment, and now I can't figure out how to get it back.  Any suggestions, anyone?

Thanks.

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:PageTriage



Open Page Curation

(only shows on uncurated pages)

[LulzKiller]

Where would Netflix stand up specials go under in a tropes examples.

[Bob Schroeck]

Thank you, Lulzkiller.

[Bob Schroeck]

Was I too harsh, rejecting Reddington's edit last night because the actual trope link was marked up as wiki words instead of in square brackets?

[Bob Schroeck]

Forget that. I've just noticed that Reddington appears to be another sock for BalonGreyjoy, whom we already knew had one alternate account. Reddington's edit to Spider-Man/Characters was:

* EvenEvilHasLovedOnes: Before becoming Venom he genuinely loved his Wife Anne. He was once forced to team up with Spider-Man to save her and her suicide which he blamed on Spider-Man crushed him.

BalonGreyjoy made the following edit just a few hours after | rejected Reddington's edit:

* [[Even Evil Has Loved Ones]] Before becoming Venom he genuinely loved his wife Anne.

I'm comfortable declaring that this is not a coincidence.

So... what do we want to do about this?

[LulzKiller]

Forget that.  I've just noticed that Reddington appears to be another sock for BalonGreyjoy, whom we already knew had one alternate account.  Reddington's edit to Spider-Man/Characters was:

* EvenEvilHasLovedOnes: Before becoming Venom he genuinely loved his Wife Anne. He was once forced to team up with Spider-Man to save her and her suicide which he blamed on Spider-Man crushed him.

BalonGreyjoy made the following edit just a few hours after | rejected Reddington's edit:

* [[Even Evil Has Loved Ones]] Before becoming Venom he genuinely loved his wife Anne.

I'm comfortable declaring that this is not a coincidence.

So... what do we want to do about this?

Do we have an explicit policy on sockpuppets of non-banned accounts?

[robkelk]

Forget that.  I've just noticed that Reddington appears to be another sock for BalonGreyjoy, whom we already knew had one alternate account.  Reddington's edit to Spider-Man/Characters was:

* EvenEvilHasLovedOnes: Before becoming Venom he genuinely loved his Wife Anne. He was once forced to team up with Spider-Man to save her and her suicide which he blamed on Spider-Man crushed him.

BalonGreyjoy made the following edit just a few hours after | rejected Reddington's edit:

* [[Even Evil Has Loved Ones]] Before becoming Venom he genuinely loved his wife Anne.

I'm comfortable declaring that this is not a coincidence.

So... what do we want to do about this?

Do we have an explicit policy on sockpuppets of non-banned accounts?

How We Do Bans Around Here, section "Grounds for a permanent ban without warning on the first occurrence":

"* Creation of multiple user accounts within a short time (usually within an hour or less), especially the creation of one account from another. This is considered prima facie evidence of a spammer or vandal."

[LulzKiller]

the user who I mentioned earlier who copypasted from TVT is claiming to be the author there, I have asked proof of this assertion.

[Bob Schroeck]

the user who I mentioned earlier who copypasted from TVT is claiming to be the author there, I have asked proof of this assertion.

We might want to contact whoever it is we know at TVT to ask for a little confirmation from there -- if we can identify the edit(s) in question on their page, and who made them.  Of course, if it's multiple users, then our guy is clearly lying, but if there's just one, we could request that their admins contact him and ask him if he's porting the edit(s).

EDIT: Okay, did a quick check on TVT. The passage in question is the result of an edit made by a user called Probjects on July 22 which expanded a pre-existing passage. Without having an account I can't go far enough back in the history of MoralEventHorizon/SuperMarioLogan to see who wrote the original passage, but I can see edits back to August 2019, and it's clear the original passage hung around unchanged for at least two years before he edited it. Without membership I cannot check Probjects' edit history, so I can't see that way if he wrote the original passage at some point before Summer 2019. We need to ask a friendly TVT contact to check, but absent that, I am inclined to doubt that "I add complete monsters" wrote the entire thing, even if he is Probjects.

[GethN7]

the user who I mentioned earlier who copypasted from TVT is claiming to be the author there, I have asked proof of this assertion.

We might want to contact whoever it is we know at TVT to ask for a little confirmation from there -- if we can identify the edit(s) in question on their page, and who made them.  Of course, if it's multiple users, then our guy is clearly lying, but if there's just one, we could request that their admins contact him and ask him if he's porting the edit(s).

EDIT:  Okay, did a quick check on TVT.  The passage in question is the result of an edit made by a user called Probjects on July 22 which expanded a pre-existing passage.  Without having an account I can't go far enough back in the history of MoralEventHorizon/SuperMarioLogan to see who wrote the original passage, but I can see edits back to August 2019, and it's clear the original passage hung around unchanged for at least two years before he edited it. Without membership I cannot check Probjects' edit history, so I can't see that way if he wrote the original passage at some point before Summer 2019.  We need to ask a friendly TVT contact to check, but absent that, I am inclined to doubt that "I add complete monsters" wrote the entire thing, even if he is Probjects.

I'll do the needful, I have a TVT account.

No, he did NOT write the original passage. He heavily edited the original but did not write the original. In fact, an examination of edits to related pages shows they have done similar edits, but the original passages were written by others.

[Bob Schroeck]

So he's lying about being the sole author, and may well be lying about being the author of any of it. Shall we let him know that if he's going to lie, he should lie about things that can't be easily checked?

[robkelk]

All The Tropes:How We Do Bans Around Here:

Grounds for a permanent ban without warning on the first occurrence

Some activity needs to be stopped as soon as it's identified. Doing any of these is grounds for permanent termination of editing rights without warning:

* Using the wiki to break the law, including but not limited to:

Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42):

14.1 (1) The author of a work has, subject to section 28.2, the right to the integrity of the work and, in connection with an act mentioned in section 3, the right, where reasonable in the circumstances, to be associated with the work as its author by name or under a pseudonym and the right to remain anonymous.

38.1 (1) Subject to this section, a copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of damages and profits referred to in subsection 35(1), an award of statutory damages for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally,

(a) in a sum of not less than $500 and not more than $20,000 that the court considers just, with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for each work or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for commercial purposes; and

(b) in a sum of not less than $100 and not more than $5,000 that the court considers just, with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for all works or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for non-commercial purposes.

Perma-ban him. He's putting the wiki at risk.

[LulzKiller]

https://allthetropes.org/w/index.php?tit...odid=14783

In other news, the guy who said that the Word of Gay entry on Wolfs Rain has updated us to know that he has proof that the entry is inaccurate, calling for second opinions.

[robkelk]

I don't know enough about the work to be able to give an informed opinion. The wording of the entry that's been cut isn't up to what we request in ATT:How to Write an Example, although that's a "should" rather than a "must":

* State the Word of God source: While we don't require strict Wikipedia style citations, one should say where a Word of God statement originated from. Something as simple at "this interview" or "Wizard magazine issue 200" or "in the commentary on the DVD" is sufficient. This is because a lot of people like to claim such and such is Word of God to make their claims seem more valid.

[Bob Schroeck]

BalonGreyjoy's getting a big bold about also being Reddington -- the current contents of the Moderation queue show him flipping between accounts to make the same edit twice on Prison Break/Characters, apparently unaware of how the moderation system works.

[GethN7]

https://allthetropes.org/w/index.php?tit...odid=14783

In other news, the guy who said that the Word of Gay entry on Wolfs Rain has updated us to know that he has proof that the entry is inaccurate, calling for second opinions.

I'm familiar with the work in question and have approved their edit stating as much. I've heard of Newtype magazine, and while my Japanese is abysmal, they would be a credible source on this topic and thus approved the edit as a good faith one.

[robkelk]

BalonGreyjoy's getting a big bold about also being Reddington -- the current contents of the Moderation queue show him flipping between accounts to make the same edit twice on Prison Break/Characters, apparently unaware of how the moderation system works.

Being blatant about it is just asking us to close off accounts. Do we want to do it ourselves, or do we ask for a Checkuser and thus get all his accounts locked across Miraheze?

[LulzKiller]

BalonGreyjoy's getting a big bold about also being Reddington -- the current contents of the Moderation queue show him flipping between accounts to make the same edit twice on Prison Break/Characters, apparently unaware of how the moderation system works.

Being blatant about it is just asking us to close off accounts. Do we want to do it ourselves, or do we ask for a Checkuser and thus get all his accounts locked across Miraheze?

Checkuser would be indisputable proof and I prefer having that over our *very strong* suspicions.

[Bob Schroeck]

I vote for checkuser as well. But if we do that we also need to dig up the other account he created at the same time as BalonGreyjoy, with a similar GoT-themed name.

And I suggest that someone else other than I ask for it. For some reason my last request for a checkuser didn't seem to be taken terribly seriously.

[robkelk]

I believe the consensus is to request a checkuser on BalonGreyjoy and Reddington, given that they are attempting to make the same edits with the same wording that are being held at Moderation at the same time.

Is this correct? Did I miss a username?