All The Tropes Wiki Project, Part XXVI

[robkelk]

I think it might be a good idea to quote from one of our policies here.

8. Bans and page locks are for protecting the wiki, not taking sides. Sanctions should never be arbitrary and capricious, and banning users should be a last resort. Temporary locks will be used in most cases; an Edit War is a sign that editors need a chance to cool down, not an excuse to wave the banhammer +12 indiscriminately. That said, yes, you still can get permanently banned from the wiki. But, unless you're a spammer or a lawbreaker, you really have to work at it. Permanent banning is an extreme sanction, used for only the worst cases and not as a way to ensure that administrators always win arguments. We promise that banning won't become an easy way to dispose of someone an admin doesn't like. If we give a ban, we will try to inform the user why they were banned. Instant bans can happen: if you have some sort of censorware installed, we'll need to protect the wiki from poor software that doesn't understand the Scunthorpe Problem. Automated attacks, obvious vandals and spammers are also subject to instant bans.

Source

Let's be sure that we're following that -- and that we're being seen to follow that -- before banning anybody.

[GethN7]

I think it might be a good idea to quote from one of our policies here.

8. Bans and page locks are for protecting the wiki, not taking sides. Sanctions should never be arbitrary and capricious, and banning users should be a last resort. Temporary locks will be used in most cases; an Edit War is a sign that editors need a chance to cool down, not an excuse to wave the banhammer +12 indiscriminately. That said, yes, you still can get permanently banned from the wiki. But, unless you're a spammer or a lawbreaker, you really have to work at it. Permanent banning is an extreme sanction, used for only the worst cases and not as a way to ensure that administrators always win arguments. We promise that banning won't become an easy way to dispose of someone an admin doesn't like. If we give a ban, we will try to inform the user why they were banned. Instant bans can happen: if you have some sort of censorware installed, we'll need to protect the wiki from poor software that doesn't understand the Scunthorpe Problem. Automated attacks, obvious vandals and spammers are also subject to instant bans.

Source

Let's be sure that we're following that -- and that we're being seen to follow that -- before banning anybody.

Agreed. Only intend to even consider it if we suddenly start seeing a wall of defacing edits to pages in the Moderation queue and after being told to cease they keep going out of sheer arrant stubbornness. In that case, I will still be giving clear public notice to cut it out before waving the banhammer.

[robkelk]

ATT and the freebie wiki just went away - I'm getting the "technical difficulties" page. My private wiki's still up.

EDIT: Phabricator ticket entered. I don't have Twitter, IRC, or Discord accounts.

[robkelk]

And it's fixed.

[robkelk]

I'm not going to approve this entry in the moderation queue, but I'm not going to reject it, either.

Horny wants to undo Carlb's edit because "I feel this paragraph makes the page very dated. These days can quickly change, and in the moment I write it I see several jokes on clean internet about 9/11, so not"

The thing is, I happen to think that the trope is dated, for the reasons that Carlb added to the page. But I'm only one mod.

[GethN7]

I'm not going to approve this entry in the moderation queue, but I'm not going to reject it, either.

Horny wants to undo Carlb's edit because "I feel this paragraph makes the page very dated. These days can quickly change, and in the moment I write it I see several jokes on clean internet about 9/11, so not"

The thing is, I happen to think that the trope is dated, for the reasons that Carlb added to the page. But I'm only one mod.

In this case, I would suggest we err on the side of it in the context of its use in fiction. If it's become a discredited trope for fictional use, we should state why, but otherwise, we should only remove cyclical trope (as many tropes can get a revival later in their usage) data only in exceptional cases, like part of the entry being plagiarized and this being discovered later.

In this case, recent circumstances have discredited its real-world implications, but I consider the trope potentially cyclical in its fictional application, though if the real-world has a direct impact of the use or reluctance to use it in fiction, then I'd let the information tying the former to the latter stand until such time as is determined otherwise.

[Bob Schroeck]

In other news, I'm really starting to suspect Max Sinister's only reason for joining the wiki is to make trouble of some kind. He seems to be deliberately refusing to understand our points. I haven't gotten to the mod queue yet after my four days of family-imposed absence from the wiki -- has he actually contributed anything of value?

[GethN7]

In other news, I'm really starting to suspect Max Sinister's only reason for joining the wiki is to make trouble of some kind.  He seems to be deliberately refusing to understand our points.  I haven't gotten to the mod queue yet after my four days of family-imposed absence from the wiki -- has he actually contributed anything of value?

Seems to have stopped cold after our initial telling him to like it or lump it in regards to our hosting things he may not like.

[robkelk]

Do we have this? (Or is it Too Rare to Trope?)

A character says his Catch Phrase, and another character responds by pointing out how that phrase is inappropriate to the current situation.

This isn't "Catchphrase Interruptus", because the second character doesn't interrupt the first one.

[GethN7]

Do we have this? (Or is it Too Rare to Trope?)

A character says his Catch Phrase, and another character responds by pointing out how that phrase is inappropriate to the current situation.

This isn't "Catchphrase Interruptus", because the second character doesn't interrupt the first one.

I know what you are referring to.

Something like that happens in the Discworld book "Night Watch", where Sam Vimes travels back in time and tries to use a catchphrase that draws only confusion because they don't know what he's talking about, prompting him to internally realize he's referring to something that won't exist for several more years.

[robkelk]

Oh, dear.

The very first suggested edit by new user Galgo, and it completely ignores our rules. No discussion that I can find about changing the page image, and the replacement image is placed at the wrong point on the page.

(And the replacement image is more boring than the image being replaced, IMHO. At least it isn't new to ATT - it came from the TVT fork.)

I have to go to work. Could somebody else do the necessary, please?

[Bob Schroeck]

I'm taking care of this, but I've just discovered that our Forums aren't working any more -- the Special:WikiForum link returns a page with "You have requested an invalid special page." on it instead of the forums directory.

[GethN7]

I'm taking care of this, but I've just discovered that our Forums aren't working any more -- the Special:WikiForum link returns a page with "You have requested an invalid special page." on it instead of the forums directory.

Seems to be a problem we need to report to Phabricator. The extension is not reported as broken as is still actively maintained. Saw nothing on the Wikimedia Phabricator about the extension have a busted link to the Forum namespace (the Forums provided by the extension have their own table), and curiously, the admin management options are still working, meaning it must be a backend issue with our hosting, likely caused by the recent update. They usually pull the latest updates automatically, so not sure what broke, we need to ask them to figure that out.

[robkelk]

In other news, I'm really starting to suspect Max Sinister's only reason for joining the wiki is to make trouble of some kind.  He seems to be deliberately refusing to understand our points.  I haven't gotten to the mod queue yet after my four days of family-imposed absence from the wiki -- has he actually contributed anything of value?

Seems to have stopped cold after our initial telling him to like it or lump it in regards to our hosting things he may not like.

He's back. And the tone of his latest post is remarkably similar to Usenet posts back in the day from single-issue posters or trolls.

I suggest that those of us who have identified ourselves as mods not reply directly to that post, since doing so would provide the attention that the poster wants.

[Bob Schroeck]

Oh, and Max Sinister has fired his latest salvo. I am firmly convinced that the only reason he joined the wiki is to cause trouble.

And Lady Kitaro has submitted another utterly illiterate edit to the same example on Foot Focus. Per the warning we gave her, I'm implementing the one-year tempban, for both that account and her other two alts.

[robkelk]

I'm taking care of this, but I've just discovered that our Forums aren't working any more -- the Special:WikiForum link returns a page with "You have requested an invalid special page." on it instead of the forums directory.

Seems to be a problem we need to report to Phabricator. The extension is not reported as broken as is still actively maintained. Saw nothing on the Wikimedia Phabricator about the extension have a busted link to the Forum namespace (the Forums provided by the extension have their own table), and curiously, the admin management options are still working, meaning it must be a backend issue with our hosting, likely caused by the recent update. They usually pull the latest updates automatically, so not sure what broke, we need to ask them to figure that out.

Do we have a Phabricator ticket number for this yet? I want to update the sitenotice to acknowledge that the forums are down.

[robkelk]

...
He's back. And the tone of his latest post is remarkably similar to Usenet posts back in the day from single-issue posters or trolls.

I suggest that those of us who have identified ourselves as mods not reply directly to that post, since doing so would provide the attention that the poster wants.

Oh, and Max Sinister has fired his latest salvo. I am firmly convinced that the only reason he joined the wiki is to cause trouble.
...

Posts that pass in the night... I've had my say on the matter by replying to Umbrie.

[Bob Schroeck]

Do we have a Phabricator ticket number for this yet? I want to update the sitenotice to acknowledge that the forums are down.

I just submitted one, liberally employing Geth's analysis for its text.

[GethN7]

...
He's back. And the tone of his latest post is remarkably similar to Usenet posts back in the day from single-issue posters or trolls.

I suggest that those of us who have identified ourselves as mods not reply directly to that post, since doing so would provide the attention that the poster wants.

Oh, and Max Sinister has fired his latest salvo.  I am firmly convinced that the only reason he joined the wiki is to cause trouble.
...

Posts that pass in the night... I've had my say on the matter by replying to Umbrie.

Well, it's become flagrantly clear they do not wish to contribute positively unless we bend to their unreasonable demands to bluenose bowdlerise ourselves to please them. Since we do not like to ban without cause, I'm going to make one post telling them this is going nowhere, our position is clear, the discussion is OVER. Anything other than compliance will be met with a block of nothing less than a year.

That way, they can't say they were not warned.

And Bob, much obliged for the technical report.

[robkelk]

...
He's back. And the tone of his latest post is remarkably similar to Usenet posts back in the day from single-issue posters or trolls.

I suggest that those of us who have identified ourselves as mods not reply directly to that post, since doing so would provide the attention that the poster wants.

Oh, and Max Sinister has fired his latest salvo.  I am firmly convinced that the only reason he joined the wiki is to cause trouble.
...

Posts that pass in the night... I've had my say on the matter by replying to Umbrie.

Well, it's become flagrantly clear they do not wish to contribute positively unless we bend to their unreasonable demands to bluenose bowdlerise ourselves to please them. Since we do not like to ban without cause, I'm going to make one post telling them this is going nowhere, our position is clear, the discussion is OVER. Anything other than compliance will be met with a block of nothing less than a year.

That way, they can't say they were not warned.

And Bob, much obliged for the technical report.

Geth, "Disagreeing with a mod" is specifically listed as something that we do not ban people for.

We have no cause to ban this user. At all.

If you make that post, you'll be leaving yourself open to complaints that the rest of us will have to act on.

[GethN7]

...
He's back. And the tone of his latest post is remarkably similar to Usenet posts back in the day from single-issue posters or trolls.

I suggest that those of us who have identified ourselves as mods not reply directly to that post, since doing so would provide the attention that the poster wants.

Oh, and Max Sinister has fired his latest salvo.  I am firmly convinced that the only reason he joined the wiki is to cause trouble.
...

Posts that pass in the night... I've had my say on the matter by replying to Umbrie.

Well, it's become flagrantly clear they do not wish to contribute positively unless we bend to their unreasonable demands to bluenose bowdlerise ourselves to please them. Since we do not like to ban without cause, I'm going to make one post telling them this is going nowhere, our position is clear, the discussion is OVER. Anything other than compliance will be met with a block of nothing less than a year.

That way, they can't say they were not warned.

And Bob, much obliged for the technical report.

Geth, "Disagreeing with a mod" is specifically listed as something that we do not ban people for.

We have no cause to ban this user. At all.

If you make that post, you'll be leaving yourself open to complaints that the rest of us will have to act on.

That's not what I'm doing. If they really wanted to change things, we have a process for it. They don't want to do that. They instead want to moralize, guilt trip us into seeing things their way, and change things to suit them and them alone, all because they oppose a core site policy without going through the proper procedure to change it, which is by vote and discussion.

If this were a simple disagreement of opinion, that's one thing. I'd be fine with that. This has been crossing the line into making demands, questioning our moral integrity, and generally just digging in their heels to insult people. If they wanted to remain civil and discuss this, that's one thing, I'd consider reasonable. However, all they want to do is demand we make changes and until we do, insult our sense of decency and morality because of their personal offense.

tl;dr: If they want to make the same arguments after they come back in a less disruptive manner, fine, but since they do not want to be civil, I think they need time to consider our position and how their approach is just disruptive. It is not our job, insofar as I'm aware, to entertain insults and invective from someone with a Single Issue Wonk who refuses to contribute in good faith.

So no, not a ban, more an enforced (and not permanent) cooling-off period so they might come back later in a more civil mood. Unless they proceed to get more disruptive, then we'll go from there.

That said, I admit I could be overstepping, so here is my post, where I admit I'm going to leave this up to my fellow admins to act on according to their discretion:

https://allthetropes.org/w/index.php?tit...1dn8adcsxp

[Umbire]

...
He's back. And the tone of his latest post is remarkably similar to Usenet posts back in the day from single-issue posters or trolls.

I suggest that those of us who have identified ourselves as mods not reply directly to that post, since doing so would provide the attention that the poster wants.

Oh, and Max Sinister has fired his latest salvo.  I am firmly convinced that the only reason he joined the wiki is to cause trouble.
...

Posts that pass in the night... I've had my say on the matter by replying to Umbrie.

Why does everyone misspell it like that...

[Bob Schroeck]

I never do... if only because I'm always saying "vampire-umpire-umbire" in my head.

Regarding Geth's response, I have to agree with him. This is not just disagreeing with a mod.

EDIT: I just saw that you changed your response 15 minutes ago as I write this. It was your original post I was in complete agreement with.

[GethN7]

I never do... if only because I'm always saying "vampire-umpire-umbire" in my head.

Regarding Geth's response, I have to agree with him.  This is not just disagreeing with a mod.

EDIT:  I just saw that you changed your response 15 minutes ago as I write this.  It was your original post I was in complete agreement with.

I decided I might be overstepping. I'll let you and Rob handle this, I could have compromised judgment here.

I'll defer to your decisions on this.

[robkelk]

...
He's back. And the tone of his latest post is remarkably similar to Usenet posts back in the day from single-issue posters or trolls.

I suggest that those of us who have identified ourselves as mods not reply directly to that post, since doing so would provide the attention that the poster wants.

Oh, and Max Sinister has fired his latest salvo.  I am firmly convinced that the only reason he joined the wiki is to cause trouble.
...

Posts that pass in the night... I've had my say on the matter by replying to Umbrie.

Why does everyone misspell it like that...

Oops. Sorry about that.