All The Tropes Wiki Project, Part XXV

[Umbire]

It absolutely does, but I wouldn't know if we had it.

[robkelk]

Wiki's down... as previously announced. It should be back in a half hour.

[Bob Schroeck]

It is.

[robkelk]

A half hour later and the wiki's back.

[GethN7]

TV Tropes staff got back to me on that image we noticed on their site with questionable copyright, they appreciated the heads up and have removed it because they concurred it might give them trouble if it remained up.

I let them know on behalf of All The Tropes we were glad to help and would be happy to do so in the future if we can assist.

[Bob Schroeck]

Oh, cool. Thanks, Geth.

[Bob Schroeck]

Do we have any kind of trope for someone getting first billing among alleged equals?  The result looks like the band name format "x and the ys" but doesn't necessarily have anything to do with music -- for instance, "Leo Gorcey and Bowery Boys".

Upon consideration, I believe that "Face of the Band" covers this adequately.

[robkelk]

I am really starting to worry about Miraheze.  I know the situation has stabilized for now, but after a truly lackluster incident report, I'm starting to lose confidence.  I raised my concerns about it over a week ago, including the lack of regular feedback and no finding on whether the outage was preventable, and there hasn't been any response.  If there really was nothing to be learned and no actions to be taken after a week-long outage, I think we need to make sure we're getting regular backups, in case the worst happens.

Just read that Incident Report early draft. If I submitted something like this to my boss, I'd be asked by her boss' boss when the real report will be finished.

I am extremely tempted to enter this as a Phabricator task

The Incident Report at https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Special:I...Reports/51 regarding the recent 11388-minute outage (Down to Up) says "Gluster has not been really been fined tuned for our setup so probably made things worse."

This is the only thing identified in the incident report as being a possible contributing factor (although for some reason it was not labelled as such).

Please fine-tune Gluster, so that the next such outage (Down to Up) does not last for 7.9+ days.

But perhaps that should come from somebody with a good working relationship with the techs.

A week and a half later, and I'm wondering whether doing this would cut down on the chronic 50* errors we're still getting. (I am not a DBA.)

[Umbire]

I am really starting to worry about Miraheze.  I know the situation has stabilized for now, but after a truly lackluster incident report, I'm starting to lose confidence.  I raised my concerns about it over a week ago, including the lack of regular feedback and no finding on whether the outage was preventable, and there hasn't been any response.  If there really was nothing to be learned and no actions to be taken after a week-long outage, I think we need to make sure we're getting regular backups, in case the worst happens.

Just read that Incident Report early draft. If I submitted something like this to my boss, I'd be asked by her boss' boss when the real report will be finished.

I am extremely tempted to enter this as a Phabricator task

The Incident Report at https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Special:I...Reports/51 regarding the recent 11388-minute outage (Down to Up) says "Gluster has not been really been fined tuned for our setup so probably made things worse."

This is the only thing identified in the incident report as being a possible contributing factor (although for some reason it was not labelled as such).

Please fine-tune Gluster, so that the next such outage (Down to Up) does not last for 7.9+ days.

But perhaps that should come from somebody with a good working relationship with the techs.

A week and a half later, and I'm wondering whether doing this would cut down on the chronic 50* errors we're still getting. (I am not a DBA.)

Guess who just had a 502 completely eat their last edit pass on an Eldritch Abomination subpage!

[Umbire]

HornyLikeIAmA14YearOldGirl is at it again, posting what reads like he's declaring a wiki policy.

I commented.

The retcon he's referring to is rather divisive and a clear localization-based one, and while as a fan of the Guilty Gear series it is somewhat asinine and jarring given prior canon, I told him to keep his seethe under contorl.

The way I see it, no matter how stupid we find something, we can have private disgust for it, but so long as he does not let his disgust leak into the statement of objective fact, no matter how cringe or not it may be, he can whine all he likes, but we will not pretend said localization did not happen. We will make clear the fact it is a localization change and compared the original translation for clarity, but he can keep his seethe to the talk page so long as he does not make any attempt to rewrite history he disagrees with on the article pages.

If he proves defiant, then he should be disciplined.

Edit: Seems this was sorted out. Horny did bring up a legitimate reason for concern I cannot dispute. TV Tropes is notorious for pretending certain history did not happen if latter history agrees with their contemporary majority's feeling on the issue, and he was concerned we would follow suit, regardless of discrepancies. In the interests of honesty and acknowledging clashing canonical information, I believe it is reasonable to mention such discrepancies (in this case, a character who had been regarded as male is now called a female, despite prior canon information to the contrary), but we do so while leaving our personal feelings out of it, we simply state the varying facts between the periods of canon in question.

I've been looking into this, and it looks like there was a significant bit of info or two left out - I've posted what I found in the relevant thread.

Since this correction, I've had two messages from that user with thinly veiled whining about changes to examples they added - one revolved around a correction of a single example he added that I corrected along with many others implying that I singled it out as bad somehow, and the other focused on a clarification of "The Slap" to imply that I was condoning violence (by stating that people might understand a guy slapping someone who made fun of his wife[???]).

This one's trying to wear on my nerves, I swear.

[robkelk]

HornyLikeIAmA14YearOldGirl is at it again, posting what reads like he's declaring a wiki policy.

I commented.

The retcon he's referring to is rather divisive and a clear localization-based one, and while as a fan of the Guilty Gear series it is somewhat asinine and jarring given prior canon, I told him to keep his seethe under contorl.

The way I see it, no matter how stupid we find something, we can have private disgust for it, but so long as he does not let his disgust leak into the statement of objective fact, no matter how cringe or not it may be, he can whine all he likes, but we will not pretend said localization did not happen. We will make clear the fact it is a localization change and compared the original translation for clarity, but he can keep his seethe to the talk page so long as he does not make any attempt to rewrite history he disagrees with on the article pages.

If he proves defiant, then he should be disciplined.

Edit: Seems this was sorted out. Horny did bring up a legitimate reason for concern I cannot dispute. TV Tropes is notorious for pretending certain history did not happen if latter history agrees with their contemporary majority's feeling on the issue, and he was concerned we would follow suit, regardless of discrepancies. In the interests of honesty and acknowledging clashing canonical information, I believe it is reasonable to mention such discrepancies (in this case, a character who had been regarded as male is now called a female, despite prior canon information to the contrary), but we do so while leaving our personal feelings out of it, we simply state the varying facts between the periods of canon in question.

I've been looking into this, and it looks like there was a significant bit of info or two left out - I've posted what I found in the relevant thread.

Since this correction, I've had two messages from that user with thinly veiled whining about changes to examples they added - one revolved around a correction of a single example he added that I corrected along with many others implying that I singled it out as bad somehow, and the other focused on a clarification of "The Slap" to imply that I was condoning violence (by stating that people might understand a guy slapping someone who made fun of his wife[???]).

This one's trying to wear on my nerves, I swear.

Oh, dear.

In your opinion, is he repeating behaviour that he was given an official warning about in this post?

If he is, then we must follow through on what Bob said we would do.

EDIT, ten minutes later: I have read the edits in question and the responses to those edits. One of them appears to me to be a difference of opinion. The other, though, is clearly a passive-aggressive attempt to get the editor to undo the edit.

Issuing a two-week tempban for ignoring a mod warning, and removing the user's autopatrolled privileges.

[Umbire]

I've been looking into this, and it looks like there was a significant bit of info or two left out - I've posted what I found in the relevant thread.

Since this correction, I've had two messages from that user with thinly veiled whining about changes to examples they added - one revolved around a correction of a single example he added that I corrected along with many others implying that I singled it out as bad somehow, and the other focused on a clarification of "The Slap" to imply that I was condoning violence (by stating that people might understand a guy slapping someone who made fun of his wife[???]).

This one's trying to wear on my nerves, I swear.

Oh, dear.

In your opinion, is he repeating behaviour that he was given an official warning about in this post?

If he is, then we must follow through on what Bob said we would do.

EDIT, ten minutes later: I have read the edits in question and the responses to those edits. One of them appears to me to be a difference of opinion. The other, though, is clearly a passive-aggressive attempt to get the editor to undo the edit.

Issuing a two-week tempban for ignoring a mod warning, and removing the user's autopatrolled privileges.

I... actually wasn't aware that was technically reportable, but if that's what you've ruled then so be it!

[Umbire]

Honestly, the aggravating thing about that (aside from it becoming a Whole Thing) was the initial assumption of "condoning violence" - in my capacity as a "neutral" editor, I made sure not to pass any moral judgment on whether what Will Smith did was right and instead noted how those watching the Oscars and others who later heard about it felt on the matter, especially as it related to how other acts were punished.

Now, speaking entirely outside that capacity: Whomst among us would not hit someone if they disrespected our spouse? Is that really such a moral failure?

[Umbire]

Honestly, the aggravating thing about that (aside from it becoming a Whole Thing) was the initial assumption of "condoning violence" - in my capacity as a "neutral" editor, I made sure not to pass any moral judgment on whether what Will Smith did was right and instead noted how those watching the Oscars and others who later heard about it felt on the matter, especially as it related to how other acts were punished.

Now, speaking entirely outside that capacity: Whomst among us would not hit someone if they disrespected our spouse? Is that really such a moral failure?

And with that out of the way, I shall now choose to get mad at something entirely different:

[GethN7]

Honestly, the aggravating thing about that (aside from it becoming a Whole Thing) was the initial assumption of "condoning violence" - in my capacity as a "neutral" editor, I made sure not to pass any moral judgment on whether what Will Smith did was right and instead noted how those watching the Oscars and others who later heard about it felt on the matter, especially as it related to how other acts were punished.

Now, speaking entirely outside that capacity: Whomst among us would not hit someone if they disrespected our spouse? Is that really such a moral failure?

And with that out of the way, I shall now choose to get mad at something entirely different:

Two things. One, I agree on the prior settled issue as well, and second, yes, this getting quite annoying.

[Bob Schroeck]

My apologies for disappearing this weekend. I always have more or less constant family obligations on Memorial Day and Labor Day weekends, and I still have half a day's worth to get through tomorrow.

Meanwhile... Rob, I think you made the right call.

[robkelk]

I've made a slight dent in the "images without licenses" pile... but the 50* errors are getting in the way of me being able to do more at this time.

[Umbire]

I have discovered that you can reasonably cause exceptions on talk pages and other areas that use the same board code by thanking someone before trying to add a reply.

[GethN7]

I would like to make a favorable endorsement of the new user Biomaster (formerly from TV Tropes) to my fellow admins. They have approached me via my personal public wall comments about getting autopatrolled, and I told them if their edits continued to be of good quality, I would give them a personal endorsement. Thus far, they have proven reasonable and receptive to good advice, and I have already approved several of their edits. I shall leave further decisions on that to the discretion of my colleagues, but in their favor they have shown a good grasp of our markup and reasonably good grammar.

I told them it may be some time before we hand out autopatrolled, and they were understanding about how it must be decided by consensus of staff.

[Bob Schroeck]

In the wake of rejecting Timthetroper's second try at a works page for something called "Doel", I realized that we seem to have a conflict between stated policy and enforcement. We say work pages are a free launch -- but we also will reject a work page lacking minimum markup in moderation. We should probably add a paragraph about Moderation and minimum requirements to Work Pages Are A Free Launch and try to address this discrepancy.

Thoughts, opinions, brickbats?

[GethN7]

In the wake of rejecting Timthetroper's second try at a works page for something called "Doel", I realized that we seem to have a conflict between stated policy and enforcement.  We say work pages are a free launch -- but we also will reject a work page lacking minimum markup in moderation.  We should probably add a paragraph about Moderation and minimum requirements to Work Pages Are A Free Launch and try to address this discrepancy. 

Thoughts, opinions, brickbats?

I concur we need to make clear that they are a free launch with the caveat that the pages are of sufficient quality to be portable immediately. If not, it needs placed back in the oven till it's done right.

[robkelk]

Can it truly be called a work page if it doesn't have the work header?

Sophistry, I know, but it gives us an "in".

[GethN7]

Can it truly be called a work page if it doesn't have the work header?

Sophistry, I know, but it gives us an "in".

A work page is a free launch if it meets all the following conditions.

1. Not plagiarized, in whole or in part.
2. Has all required markup.
3. Has sufficient information to qualify at least as a stub to be fleshed out.

That seems like a good litmus test IMO.

[Bob Schroeck]

Oh, I like that.

[robkelk]

Do we have a trope for giving the villain a hero's funeral in order to avoid scandal?