All The Tropes Wiki Project, Part XX

[GethN7]

Bob, you might want to read this and my response: https://allthetropes.fandom.com/f/p/4400...0000094828

[robkelk]

Re the comment by DerpDerpDerpy: "When a user requests to be banned"... then one wonders whether that user ever intended to play nice.

[Bob Schroeck]

Hm. I checked out that thread the first time it was linked. (As always, Doc Colress is a poor sport.) I'll admit being curious about your comment about Fandom requiring you to be more informal than ATT, Geth. I would think it would be the other way around.

[GethN7]

Hm.  I checked out that thread the first time it was linked.  (As always, Doc Colress is a poor sport.)  I'll admit being curious about your comment about Fandom requiring you to be more informal than ATT, Geth.  I would think it would be the other way around.

What that means is certain matters of policy are entirely out of my hands. While Miraheze generally remains as hands-off as possible, FANDOM has been far more insistent in handling more technical matters, meaning a lot of the matters handled directly by us on ATT Miraheze is done by them, meaning I mostly enforce the rest and certain technical limitations means I have less ability to enforce strict quality for everything (no Moderation extension).

Overall, the meat and potatoes of the essentials are handled by me, but where otherwise noted it's no longer my direct purview.

[Bob Schroeck]

Ah. Yes, now I see what you meant.

[Bob Schroeck]

Heads up, folks. Lion Warrior -- the guy whose attempts to illustrate Male Gaze have been, as I put it last year, the equivalent of a 12-year-old boy squealing "there's a girl in this picture!" -- is back after a six-month hiatus. He just tried to replace a page image with something more to his tastes, only he didn't bother to upload it first (with luck he's currently lacking that permission). I'm checking his other new edits on the assumption that they're just as inappropriate as they've been every other time he's edited here.

EDIT: Amazingly, his other two edits are just barely acceptable, although either his standards for sexy asses are terribly low, or there have been a lot of unimpressive female Power Rangers. However, everyone remember that Lion Warrior is on his last chance here -- six months ago he received a "final warning before permanent ban" for his previous behavior, so we need to ride him and not let any of his crap through.

[Bob Schroeck]

And guess who else just came back? SmileyB, the loser who got a two-week ban two and a half months ago because we insisted he answer "yes" or "no" to a yes/no question instead of watching his elaborate set of videos and listening to his tragic backstory. This is someone else I think we should be riding as well.

What a curious coincidence that he and Lion Warrior both return to the wiki on the same day.

[robkelk]

I just double-checked - both Lion Warrior and SmileyB still need their posts moderated.

[robkelk]

Bob, I trust you don't mind me replying on a thread on your talk page.

[Bob Schroeck]

Not at all.

[Bob Schroeck]

I just double-checked - both Lion Warrior and SmileyB still need their posts moderated.

And huh?  I reviewed their stuff hours ago.  And just checked the moderation log to make sure I didn't brainfart somehow.

[robkelk]

Somebody accepted their edits in the moderation queue, obviously. Maybe me - I tend to look at the contributions, not the contributor names.

---

Cwf1997 has been told twice in three weeks to use the page-creation templates: here and here.

If I see another new page from this user that obviously didn't use a template, I'll be dropping a warning on the user's Talk page, citing "Refusing to learn from honest mistakes, or repeatedly making the same honest mistake after it's been pointed out."

[GethN7]

Heads up, folks. Lion Warrior -- the guy whose attempts to illustrate Male Gaze have been, as I put it last year, the equivalent of a 12-year-old boy squealing "there's a girl in this picture!" -- is back after a six-month hiatus.  He just tried to replace a page image with something more to his tastes, only he didn't bother to upload it first (with luck he's currently lacking that permission).  I'm checking his other new edits on the assumption that they're just as inappropriate as they've been every other time he's edited here.

EDIT:  Amazingly, his other two edits are just barely acceptable, although either his standards for sexy asses are terribly low, or there have been a lot of unimpressive female Power Rangers.  However, everyone remember that Lion Warrior is on his last chance here -- six months ago he received a "final warning before permanent ban" for his previous behavior, so we need to ride him and not let any of his crap through.

I've seen that Lion Warrior on the FANDOM branch of ATT, more info here, I think we should just let him know he's not welcome:

https://allthetropes.fandom.com/wiki/Mes...FanForever

This deviant moron kept posting lowbrow creepshot stuff despite all rules and it was pretty clear all their edits took place with one hand only.

As for SmileyB, if they learned a little common sense and humility, maybe let them stay. If not, they can leave too IMO.

[Bob Schroeck]

Rob, I saw that you removed the "unacceptable name" option from the ban reasons list. Didn't we have that there in the first place because of the guy with a user name too close to yours? We can keep it there, with the caveat that we have final say on what's unacceptable, and that we set a high bar...

[robkelk]

I don't recall whether we put it there or Miraheze did, actually. I do know that we don't list "unacceptable name" on our list of reasons for a permaban... which is why I removed it. We can always type it in as an "Other Reason" if necessary.

[GethN7]

Yeah, unless the name rises to the level being a string of profanity, a slur, or some other name that is just offensive but is not necessarily Miraheze overlords offending bad, we can let our overlords decide that but what they leave in our lap we'll decide at our discretion, and I agree with LT about that being a high bar.

[robkelk]

Exactly. We've let the userIDs "CunningStuntbag", "HornyLikeIAmA14YearOldGirl", and "SkanksGetShankedd" through, so I wouldn't cancel anything that isn't worse than all of those.

[Bob Schroeck]

I have come to the conclusion that the most annoying thing about the moderation extension is not being able to see the edit reason before you approve the edit. This morning there's a 2K deletion from the page Tatsudoshi in the queue, pretty much gutting its main text, and I'm going to have to approve the edit to find out why. I know it's more for stopping spam, but it's also useful for preventing damage to pages by careless and/or first-time editors...

EDIT: And there was no edit reason. Well, that's why we have "undo"; I've reverted the change and I'll wait to see if the editor -- "Uponthewayaway" -- comes back to make it again.

[robkelk]

"Same as TV Tropes".

sigh...

Well, that's why we have "undo". And I've left a note on the troper's Talk page saying why aping TVT is a bad idea

[Bob Schroeck]

Joy. I've added my two cents' worth to the thread, btw.

Meanwhile, I wanted to give people another heads-up -- we may have a potential vandal or other kind of troublemaker gearing up. The following accounts were all created since midnight last night:

• 09:54, June 10, 2021 User account Commentfecmt823 talk contribs block was created
  
• 06:20, June 10, 2021 User account Commentwxdmn89 talk contribs block was created
  
• 05:40, June 10, 2021 User account Commentbidcw656 talk contribs block was created
  
• 01:38, June 10, 2021 User account Commentempnr376 talk contribs block was created
  

Then again, it may simply be an extraordinarily honest comment spammer...

[GethN7]

I'm probably going to be out of commission for a couple of days, got my vax shot and currently running off a checklist of fever symptoms while it does its thing.

[robkelk]

I don't have time to handhold new users right now. Somebody else gets to be the contact point with "Hsart", please.

[robkelk]

I don't have time to handhold new users right now. Somebody else gets to be the contact point with "Hsart", please.

A day later, I've done the essential work and left the talk page message...

[robkelk]

Let's see how far this new user pushes the envelope.

The phrasing of the request for information is ... unusual, to say the least. But at least he's being honest up-front.

[GethN7]

Let's see how far this new user pushes the envelope.

The phrasing of the request for information is ... unusual, to say the least. But at least he's being honest up-front.

I provided a response to that, hope it's sufficient.

As for my take on the topic at hand, it's fair to say a LOT of World War II's history wasn't just written by the winners, but also the losers who sucked up to the winners. For example, a lot of Wehrmacht surviving officers pinned a lot of their own screwups on Hitler's corpse and tried to whitewash themselves as being innocent of war crimes, infamously known as the "clean Wehrmacht" premise, even though that's an oxymoron since the Nazis forced the Wehrmacht to pledge loyalty to Hitler and thus were accomplices by default, even if only as passive observers.

Insofar as any discussion of historical events on our wiki takes place within pointing out what was actually true and using that to improve our articles so we can better contrast the fiction that mines those historical events, then I'm all for this, TV Tropes does have a tendency to accept a single black and white narrative and mob against anyone who dares suggest the situation was a varying shade of grey.

Tag me in if any edits on historical topics do start edging into potential BS territory, this is my specialty, I can do the legwork and clear that up.

Edit: I think our new friend here may have come off badly with how they phrased things. Historians are expected to revise their data once new information arises. Initially, Albert Speer was considered the only relatively decent man among the Nazis, but evidence discovered soon after the initial belief in such (including Speer's own whitewash of an autobiography) got revised when documentary evidence his claims to have avoided knowledge of the Holocaust were utter bollocks came out, since documents proving his construction projects benefited from concentration camp labor under his own aegis surfaced proved he was lying through his teeth on that score.