All The Tropes Wiki Project, Part XXX

[robkelk]

While we're talking about him, I wish we could put him on notice for his reviews.  I'm getting pretty tired of every single freaking one of them boiling down to "I hate this work because it's woke".

We need viewpoints that don't agree with ours, Bob.

It would be nice if they're well-thought-out and well-stated viewpoints, like the ones Geth provides when he writes about controversial topics, but at this point I'll take what we can get.

[Bob Schroeck]

I still have all the original reviews from TVT, in hundreds of little plain text files... we can't have that many more new ones, can we? Whether we do or not, I'm sure we can figure out how to export them in a form we can use later.

[GethN7]

While we're talking about him, I wish we could put him on notice for his reviews.  I'm getting pretty tired of every single freaking one of them boiling down to "I hate this work because it's woke".

We need viewpoints that don't agree with ours, Bob.

It would be nice if they're well-thought-out and well-stated viewpoints, like the ones Geth provides when he writes about controversial topics, but at this point I'll take what we can get.

I try to take a long and broad view as detached from my personal biases as possible, some people aren't able to detach themselves as much. That said, I argue reviews are one of the few places where subjectivity is fine in nigh all forms so long as it's on topic.

As for Flow being updated, if we have to redo how we post reviews as a result, so be it. Our current setup is kinda hackworthy at best anyway, so I'll eagerly embrace something more sane for reviews and discussions.

Also, much obliged Rob:

https://allthetropes.org/wiki/Category:D...ff=2084183

Some of these were Wikipedia imports that came with goofball categories like this, removing this sort of cruft is never a bad thing.

[Bob Schroeck]

While we're talking about him, I wish we could put him on notice for his reviews.  I'm getting pretty tired of every single freaking one of them boiling down to "I hate this work because it's woke".

We need viewpoints that don't agree with ours, Bob.

Oh, I know. I just find his one-note approach to everything exceedingly tedious. I have been tempted to create a parody reviewer to imitate his style and complain that while the Bible started out good, when the main character's son takes over the action he turns the whole thing woke and therefore it should be thrown in a fire and right-thinking people should never read it.

[robkelk]

While we're talking about him, I wish we could put him on notice for his reviews.  I'm getting pretty tired of every single freaking one of them boiling down to "I hate this work because it's woke".

We need viewpoints that don't agree with ours, Bob.

Oh, I know. I just find his one-note approach to everything exceedingly tedious. I have been tempted to create a parody reviewer to imitate his style and complain that while the Bible started out good, when the main character's son takes over the action he turns the whole thing woke and therefore it should be thrown in a fire and right-thinking people should never read it.

I think we had a discussion about not wanting AI content yet (because it's rarely at even a junior-high-school literacy level), but I'm sorely tempted to ask a travesty generator to write that sort of review... if only to show that there are no sacred cows on ATT.

[MilkmanConspiracy]

Regarding the edits to Berserk in the mod queue, I ran the changes through a plagiarism detector and didn’t find any valid hits, along with manual cross checking against likely sources. Would it be OK to approve it then? (There are a few small grammatical issues regarding dates, but those can be fixed easily) I’m a bit cautious given the earlier edit and my relative inexperience, so a second pair of eyes might not be a bad idea.

Thank you!

[GethN7]

Regarding the edits to Berserk in the mod queue, I ran the changes through a plagiarism detector and didn’t find any valid hits, along with manual cross checking against likely sources. Would it be OK to approve it then? (There are a few small grammatical issues regarding dates, but those can be fixed easily) I’m a bit cautious given the earlier edit and my relative inexperience, so a second pair of eyes might not be a bad idea.

Thank you!

If no obvious plagiarism is detected and it passes the general sniff test for adhering to our rules, then I say let it ride.

[MilkmanConspiracy]

Regarding the edits to Berserk in the mod queue, I ran the changes through a plagiarism detector and didn’t find any valid hits, along with manual cross checking against likely sources. Would it be OK to approve it then? (There are a few small grammatical issues regarding dates, but those can be fixed easily) I’m a bit cautious given the earlier edit and my relative inexperience, so a second pair of eyes might not be a bad idea.

Thank you!

If no obvious plagiarism is detected and it passes the general sniff test for adhering to our rules, then I say let it ride.

Roger that! 

Thank you for your help.

[robkelk]

I put together another franchise navbox over lunch.

Amazingly, its list of fan works does not include UF.

[Bob Schroeck]

I put together another franchise navbox over lunch.

Amazingly, its list of fan works does not include UF.

Yet.

I noticed you didn't include My Apartment Manager Is Not an Isekai Character. Fixed that.

[robkelk]

I noticed you didn't include My Apartment Manager Is Not an Isekai Character. Fixed that.

Because it wasn't tagged with "Category:Firefly (franchise)/Fan Works", and I only had so much time over lunch...

[Bob Schroeck]

Fixed that, too. <grin>

[MilkmanConspiracy]

Is it ok to reject an edit on Long Runner Lineup that consists of apparently original content, but frequently follows the formatting of an equivalent page on the other tropes wiki?

I’m at a bit of a loss because:

• New (accurate) information is injected into the edit that isn’t present in what I suspect is being paraphrased. This is the biggest green flag for me, because it indicates some level of knowledge on what is being written about.
  
• The structure is very similar, more than what I would expect from original writing, which is the biggest red flag for me. That said, It’s a pre-fork page being updated, and that may just be the logical progression.
  

[GethN7]

Is it ok to reject an edit on Long Runner Lineup that consists of apparently original content, but frequently follows the formatting of an equivalent page on the other tropes wiki?

I’m at a bit of a loss because:

• New (accurate) information is injected into the edit that isn’t present in what I suspect is being paraphrased. This is the biggest green flag for me, because it indicates some level of knowledge on what is being written about.
  
• The structure is very similar, more than what I would expect from original writing, which is the biggest red flag for me. That said, It’s a pre-fork page being updated, and that may just be the logical progression.
  

Make a reasoned judgment call. The use of certain bare facts alone is not altogether bad, there is only so many ways to render basic facts. That said, a glance at their history shows they have been called on the carpet before for copying, so I'd err on the side of caution. In this case, I'd say you have enough reasonable doubt to reject the edit and admonish the user. If they keep this pattern up, temp bans of whatever length you deem proper (a week to a month) can be instituted to get the message across we do not tolerate plagiarism. If they consistently prove defiant, several months can be added (three to six) if you really need to get the message across, and if they sock or react badly to your being responsible, you have the power to block indefinitely if need be, but only go that far if they dig in their heels with defiance.

Given our nonprofit situation, it is entirely reasonable to err on the side of safety, and if they refuse to explain themselves and keep going with concerning behavior of this nature, they feel free to take whatever measures are needed to get the message across. If things still look unclear, asking us is wise of you and we can handle it if we need to. For now, reject the edit and demand a proper explanation. If they refuse to give it and/or acknowledge the concerns and keep going with obvious plagiarism, consider the question answered and drop a long tempban and send them a message this to give them time to reconsider their actions. If it gets worse from here and/or they sockpuppet, then feel free to be as harsh as need be to get the point across.

[robkelk]

And if things get to that point and you don't feel comfortable being harsh, let Bob and me know. Bob's very good at being harsh when the safety of the wiki as a whole is at stake, and I'm almost as good.

[Bob Schroeck]

Yeah, I don't know how the hell I got good at "bad cop", but I am.

As for advice here, I have nothing to add except check a user's talk page for previous issues before deciding on your approach.

[MilkmanConspiracy]

Rejected both of their edits. (Accidentally approved one, but reverted. You may want to redact that edit from the page history, as Wikipedia does for some edits)

I would issue an attention getting short duration temp ban for this, but I lack the permissions to do so.

If this is who the username suggests (I’m not sure they are based on their behavior) they’re a veteran trooper and Wikimedian who should know better. Hell, if they are, there’s a good chance they wrote at least some of that content in the first place (I can’t see the page history on the source wiki though). They would just need to use that revision and identify their authorship.

Edit: Spaced out for a second and forgot some words.

[GethN7]

Rejected both of their edits. (Accidentally approved one, but reverted. You may want to redact that edit from the page history, as Wikipedia does for some edits)

I would issue an attention getting short duration temp ban for this, but I lack the permissions to do so.

If this is who the username suggests (I’m not sure they are based on their behavior) they’re a veteran trooper and Wikimedian who should know better. Hell, if they are, there’s a good chance they wrote at least some of that content in the first place (I can’t see the page history on the source wiki though). They would just need to use that revision and identify their authorship.

Edit: Spaced out for a second and forgot some words.

Did the redaction, and even if they are the original writer, they still have a duty to inform us and provide proof we can check. If they wrote on TV Tropes, they now use CC BY NC SA, while we still use CC BY SA. While an editor can port to another license freely between sites, the onus is on them to specify they did as such. While the chances of legal issues are low, there are not zero, and we need to be perfectly clear their edits are ported with their full permission.

As for the ban, I'm going to implement one, and we'll look into tweaking user right permissions for you.

[MilkmanConspiracy]

Thank you for your help!

[robkelk]

As for the ban, I'm going to implement one, and we'll look into tweaking user right permissions for you.

You forgot to ping the troper who you tempbanned.

Looking through the talk page, everybody has consistently forgotten to ping the troper in question. We as a group need to do better than that.


As for bans, I'd prefer to leave that ability in the hands of admins only. Admins and mods are supposed to work together, after all - there's no big inconvenience to leaving the keys to ultimate measure in as few hands as possible.

[GethN7]

As for the ban, I'm going to implement one, and we'll look into tweaking user right permissions for you.

You forgot to ping the troper who you tempbanned.

Looking through the talk page, everybody has consistently forgotten to ping the troper in question. We as a group need to do better than that.


As for bans, I'd prefer to leave that ability in the hands of admins only. Admins and mods are supposed to work together, after all - there's no big inconvenience to leaving the keys to ultimate measure in as few hands as possible.

My mistake, the Echo notification should be an attention-getter in that regard, but mea culpa, I'll remember to ping them next time.

As for bans, we have a fine grained control over that, and we could give mods the ability to implement temporary blocks and we admins can hand out the permabans if that's acceptable.

[robkelk]

My mistake, the Echo notification should be an attention-getter in that regard, but mea culpa, I'll remember to ping them next time.

As far as I know, we don't have "the Echo notification" installed.

[MilkmanConspiracy]

Shoot, didn’t realize they weren’t getting a notification. I’ll be sure to do that when messaging users going forward.

[Bob Schroeck]

Wait a second, I know that I get alerted any time someone starts a new thread on my talk page, whether they explicitly ping me or not. He should have been alerted to your post. It doesn't hurt to make sure, but you didn't make any kind of error here.

[GethN7]

My mistake, the Echo notification should be an attention-getter in that regard, but mea culpa, I'll remember to ping them next time.

As far as I know, we don't have "the Echo notification" installed.

That's what those little things with the numbers up at the page top that inform you of talk page changes or page actions are that run along the user bar area.

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