All The Tropes Wiki Project, Part XXX

[MilkmanConspiracy]

On another subject entirely...  MC, you approved this edit, but half the links in it were redlinked -- one to a trope we don't have, and one for bad capitalization.  Given the non-existent trope was the only entry on the page, this probably should have been rejected with a note of advice to the contributor to make sure that any tropes they want to list exist on this site.  I've gone in and potholed the trope link to a sufficiently similar trope that we do have, so there's no need to do anything now.  Just... keep it in mind for the future.

That’s a good catch, and it has shown me a flaw in my approval methodology. I had been going by diff + Copy and pasting into a plagiarism checker website, plus manual checking against likely sources, but I had forgotten to actually preview and check what it looked like as a result. I've typically caught syntax typos by sight in the past, but it’s clear that that’s fallible, so I’ll incorporate use of the preview going forward.

[Bob Schroeck]

If the replacement image is the same picture but of higher resolution, that isn't an issue.

If the earlier image is missing, again that isn't an issue.

What Rob said.

[MilkmanConspiracy]

I was looking at the moderation queue and I noticed a removal of content for the pending edit in Together In Death. I figured if it was something that the user had submitted prior and later realized didn’t fit, it would be uncontroversial to approve the remove. While the changes is written in such a way that it suggests it may be the same user, it was not. It was submitted by a user named iloveicecream, who was apparently banned several years ago according to the message on their page. I don’t want to jump to conclusions, but is a link between these users possible?

[Bob Schroeck]

...That is indeed an interesting coincidence. I don't particularly remember anything about iloveicecream; we'll need to look at their contribution history and see if there are similar patterns. If they were banned several years ago it's too long to do a checkuser, but if we can spot similarities in their edits or obsessions we may indeed have a ban evader. On the other hand, they were a good enough contributor, at least initially, that we thought they deserved a promotion to automod, which raises the question whether we should ignore a possible ban evader who's actually improved.

Thoughts, Rob, Geth, Brent?

[GethN7]

...That is indeed an interesting coincidence.  I don't particularly remember anything about iloveicecream; we'll need to look at their contribution history and see if there are similar patterns.  If they were banned several years ago it's too long to do a checkuser, but if we can spot similarities in their edits or obsessions we may indeed have a ban evader.  On the other hand, they were a good enough contributor, at least initially, that we thought they deserved a promotion to automod, which raises the question whether we should ignore a possible ban evader who's actually improved.

Thoughts, Rob, Geth, Brent?

I say we ask them to come clean if they are a ban evader. Willingness to do so or proof they are not a ban evader would be a mitigating circumstance to determine our next step. If they have measurably improved and are willing to be a civil and productive member of the community if they were formerly banned, I'd be open to letting them stay pursuant to their honesty and/or proof they are not the same person.

[Bob Schroeck]

And I checked iloveicecream's talk page. He got banned for being a ban evader, after we gave him a couple temp bans for basically refusing to follow advice, proper markup, and the style guide.

The kind of thing he seems to be doing now, like the persistent putting of italics markup inside link markup.

[robkelk]

Do we want to ask the Stewards for a checkuser?

[Bob Schroeck]

Like I said, it's been too long. I can't remember which particular case it was, but I was told in a similar situation that the data they use for checkuser "drops off" after a year or so. And in this case it's been three years.

EDIT: At the very least we should hold off on restoring the automod bit to his new account.

[robkelk]

And I checked iloveicecream's talk page. He got banned for being a ban evader, after we gave him a couple temp bans for basically refusing to follow advice, proper markup, and the style guide.

The kind of thing he seems to be doing now, like the persistent putting of italics markup inside link markup.

He also ignored a rule today that he acknowledged reading yesterday. I've rejected one of his edits -- the first one that I looked at this morning -- because of this.

EDIT: He took the same action in other edits which I haven't yet rejected. Once can be a mistake, at least four times cannot.

[Bob Schroeck]

And he implicitly admitted that he was indeed Iloveicecream. And basically is doing the "I should be allowed to do what I want" bit we see from so many special snowflakes.

[GethN7]

And he implicitly admitted that he was indeed Iloveicecream.  And basically is doing the "I should be allowed to do what I want" bit we see from so many special snowflakes.

With that in mind, I support all efforts to disabuse him of his illusions.

[robkelk]

Suggestion: Put him permanently On Notice as soon as he breaks another rule, just like we did HLIAA14YOG.

[GethN7]

Suggestion: Put him permanently On Notice as soon as he breaks another rule, just like we did  HLIAA14YOG.

Sounds good to me.

[MilkmanConspiracy]

Sounds good to me.

[Bob Schroeck]

Likewise. And we should probably quietly ban the "Ilovecakes" account just in case -- or at least reduce its privileges so low he can only read every second word. Although I don't doubt his password problem was legitimate -- I can't imagine him not wanting and using an end-run around Moderation if he had it -- we don't want to leave a backdoor open just in case he finds the post-it note with the password under a keyboard or something.

EDIT: And I've gone ahead and both blocked the account and removed the only rights -- automod, autopatrolled -- I could from it.

[robkelk]

Yeah -- it's awfully suspicious that he "forgot" the password to an account as soon as it no longer required moderator attention on every edit.

As I said on the wiki, I don't have time to play games with him. Don't expect me to moderate any of his posts. Ever.

[Bob Schroeck]

Here we go again... intermittent 500 errors over the past twenty minutes or so.

[Bob Schroeck]

Thirteen hours later and it's still throwing 500s and loading pages with no styling.

[Bob Schroeck]

And now this:

  ATT error.png (Size: 11 KB / Downloads: 16)

Just what the hell is going on?

[MilkmanConspiracy]

It was pretty unstable this morning.