All The Tropes Wiki Project, Part XXVII

[robkelk]

We have images back! Confirmed with a successful upload of a small test image.

I've updated the sitenotice.

[Bob Schroeck]

Yay! (although I noticed about 9 hours ago, actually.)

[robkelk]

I don't know why this proposal leaves me nervous, but it does. Perhaps, if somebody else replies to the suggestion, my concerns might come into focus...?

[Bob Schroeck]

Mm. I don't see anything immediately problematic, but let me think on it.

[robkelk]

One wonders whether SmileyB reads their talk page. See here (new) and here (older).

[Bob Schroeck]

<snrk> Let's see if they even notice that you copied my message almost word-for-word.

[Bob Schroeck]

Okay, I have cleared out the Moderation Queue except for one edit -- a new page for a creator called Amoridere. The contributor says she(?) is porting over her page from Tropedia, and the history for their copy of the page bears her out as being the sole contributor there. But the page also exists on TVT, is dramatically similar, and I can't see enough of the history to determine if she can possibly be the original author of the page there. Geth, you have a TVT account, IIRC -- when you get an opportunity could you check their history and see what you can determine? Thank you!

[GethN7]

Okay, I have cleared out the Moderation Queue except for one edit -- a new page for a creator called Amoridere.  The contributor says she(?) is porting over her page from Tropedia, and the history for their copy of the page bears her out as being the sole contributor there.  But the page also exists on TVT, is dramatically similar, and I can't see enough of the history to determine if she can possibly be the original author of the page there.  Geth, you have a TVT account, IIRC -- when you get an opportunity could you check their history and see what you can determine?  Thank you!

Same editor, a look over the TVT history shows their story checks out

[Bob Schroeck]

Cool. Thanks!

[robkelk]

Yeah, I went there.

Hey, to non-Americans, it's just another play.

[robkelk]

Note to self: I just noticed that A Duet of Pigtails isn't yet on the "Ranma ½/Fanfic Recs" page. (Magic Knight Rayearth doesn't have a Fanfic Recs page yet.)

If you also think it should be listed, feel free to beat me to it...

[robkelk]

I need another mod to jump in here, please. I think we have something somewhere about this, but I don't recall what and where.

[Bob Schroeck]

Something about this in what way? Whether or not they can delete it, or should? I'm not sure what you're looking for.

[robkelk]

Something about when a creator doesn't want us to list works.

[Bob Schroeck]

Oh, I think that's in the FAQ for Creators. Let me go look.

Yup. How can I get you guys to stop mentioning my work? Which boils down to, if there's a good reason like stalkers or it's a damaging Old Shame or something else like that, we'll oblige you, but normally no, because wiki.

[robkelk]

I get the feeling that it's an Old Shame, so I'll take the entries out. But I won't watch the pages to make sure they aren't put back in.

[Bob Schroeck]

What is up with the wiki today? It's crawling like a dog under a fence, and throwing the occasional 50X error.

[robkelk]

Spent an afternoon doing what I could to reduce the number of pages in the Trope Workshop, since it was my edit to Template:Trope Needs Examples that sent so many pages back into the Workshop to begin with. (I didn't expect there to be that many tropes without any examples at all.)

This means I didn't spend an afternoon clearing the Moderation queue... <sigh>

[Bob Schroeck]

And All The Tropes has once again undergone its magical girl transformation into the All The 50Xs Wiki, thanks to the hamsters powering the wiki engine apparently dying or something.

EDIT: Six minutes later it's back... but the database is locked. <insert furious swearing here>

EDIT 2: And whatever happened is so severe that Meta has vanished. "Wiki not found - We couldn't find this wiki. Check your spelling and try again." appears when you try to go there.

[robkelk]

Meta's back.

As for ATT being in read-only mode, I've entered https://phabricator.miraheze.org/T10817

[robkelk]

The wiki is in update mode again.

And I've added a proposal to change one of the pages in the All The Tropes namespace, starting the discussion on the Main Page's talk page so that everybody can take part. Opinions requested from everybody who's ever read ATT, not just the current Tropers.

[robkelk]

The wiki is in update mode again.

And I've added a proposal to change one of the pages in the All The Tropes namespace, starting the discussion on the Main Page's talk page so that everybody can take part. Opinions requested from everybody who's ever read ATT, not just the current Tropers.

This appears to be a popular change.

While we're updating policy/guideline pages, I'd like to add the following to our list of ban reasons. I'm not sure which list to add it to, though - permaban without warning, tempban without warning, or tempban with a warning. (I'm leaning toward tempban without warning; it isn't something that somebody can do accidentally.)

* Harassment of another Troper, including but not limited to [[wikipedia: Doxing|posting of someone else's personal information that the person had not previously posted here]].

[Bob Schroeck]

I'm kind of split between perm and temp without warning. Maybe both, depending on level of egregiousness -- we have a precedent for something like that.

[GethN7]

I'm kind of split between perm and temp without warning.  Maybe both, depending on level of egregiousness -- we have a precedent for something like that.

Note sure how to go about this myself.

I see one of two situations that could use differing levels of response.

1. "Hey is "post Facebook page link to tropers IRL name and face" you? I'd like to be sure so I can add you as a friend." Kinda innocent for the most part and not sure if it counts as doxing. It could be if this information is not easily accessible, or information that would reasonably be private is posted (like bank account info, SSNs, and so on), which leans closer to number 2. Even if exposed via a leak of some sort, the latter we should not encourage spreading around. and likely treat it as number 2.

2. Well, if it isn't (posts link to IRL social media)? Maybe your employer should know you have a (insert site that has links to unspeakable porn or questionably legal or even blatantly illegal content)? This seems more permaban without warning level.

[Bob Schroeck]

Netflix is being indicted for the movie "Cuties" by the State of Texas, citing it was produced to appeal to the prurient interest concerning minors.

Just to follow up on this, I just stumbled across the following:

Judge dismisses Tyler County lawsuit against Netflix over ‘Cuties’ film

This happened a year ago.

There isn't much in the article -- by the time it came out the whole Cuties kerfluffle had turned into a nothingburger -- but basically the District Attorney petitioned the judge to dismiss the case on the grounds that (if I'm reading this correctly) the law that Netflix was indicted under was inapplicable.

“While the State believes the charged portion of Texas Penal Code 43.262 is constitutional, the facts of this case are better suited for other statutes”

And basically that's it. As far as I can determine now that I'm actively looking, there was no further action against Netflix in the last year. No child pornography, no great triumph over the librul mainstreem meedya by a crusading republican. Just the DA, who would have prosecuted Netflix, telling the judge they had nothing in the way of a case.

EDIT: Oh, wait, there is a little more. Six months after the case was dismissed, a Federal judge blocked all further prosecution of Netflix in Texas because the charges were bogus -- the allegedly "underage" actress who was the basis for at least some of the child porn charges was over eighteen:

Section 43.25 [under which Netflix is prosecuted] is a child pornography statute, but the Court is unconvinced that Cuties contains child pornography. In all of Cuties, there are no sex scenes and there is only one scene that contains nudity. In that one scene, the Cuties are watching a video on one of their phones when a dancer in the video flashes her breast for a fraction of a second. But that dancer ("Jane Doe") was not a minor. Therefore, her nudity cannot constitute child pornography.

Further, evidence had been presented to him that the legal team behind the original indictment and an attempt at a second try at prosecuting Netflix knew this well before at least the second try but still claimed the actress was underage in the new indictment.

I've noted this before, but it seems the would-be censors are just as willing to lie about what they want to censor as they are to trust that their evidence is sufficient on its own.