All The Tropes Wiki Project, Part XXX

[robkelk]

There’s also a pending edit to The Unfettered that includes a change to the description. Content wise I don’t have a problem with it, but it was suspiciously similar to the TV tropes wording. I’m not sure if that’s just my own paranoia though.

Considering this is a problem child we are dealing with, I say we regard everything with an Eye of Sauron and put the onus on them to prove otherwise.

Agreed. I'm already assuming based on past behaviour that he's a troll. Give this one zero benefit of the doubt.

Interestingly, one of their recent edits was on a piece of (What I hope is) fiction about an online troll bringing people to suicide. That’s not evidence of being a troll in and of itself, I wouldn’t advocate any administrative action solely on media analysis or consumption of something like that within the rules, but it’s something to consider alongside other factors.

You are correct - a single event is not enough to call somebody a troll. I'm basing my opinion on longstanding pattern of behaviour.

However, copying recent changes to TV Tropes is definitely against our rules. Since we told him that "Any further violation of the rules - any rules - will result in a tempban", and I for one do not make empty threats, he's now on a two-week holiday from editing the wiki.

[GethN7]

Can someone please provide input to the situation with user Weirdly Green? I initially rejected their edit because it was already on TV Tropes and the username didn’t match, but they claim to be the same person and pointed out that their edit on ATT 10:07 is before their TV Tropes edit (10:11:56). I’m not totally sure about some of the other things they’re saying, so I wanted to confirm first before going ahead and approving it. They also sent me a message about it on my user board page on ATT if that helps.

I verified their account edit as legitimate, it's literally a word for word copy of an edit they submitted there under the account name they have there, which is fine under CC rules, which allow dual licensing by the original poster.

[MilkmanConspiracy]

Understood. Initially I didn’t catch that the edit was on ATT first before they pointed it out, and had only noticed it was the same day, but with a different handle. I just apologized on the thread for my error.

I think I upset them, given that they sent me a foe request, (rejected), which is not my intent. In the future, would it be appropriate to ask the user questions before rejecting the edit to avoid this sort of thing?

[Bob Schroeck]

Yes, that's probably the best way to go about it. Leave the edit in the queue and inquire. And point out that falsely claiming the right to copy content from TVT to us is an "immediate permanent block" offense per "How We Do Bans Around Here". (Because of course we've had the occasional nimrod who replied "oh sure I wrote it lol".)

[MilkmanConspiracy]

Got it, I’ll be more careful going forward.

[Bob Schroeck]

No worries, we've all done the same at one time or another. Practically every "best practice" we pass on to you is the result of one or the other of us choosing the worst practice first. <grin>

[robkelk]

Warning: The database has been locked for maintenance, so you will not be able to publish your edits right now. You may wish to copy and paste your text into a text file and save it for later.

The system administrator who locked it offered this explanation: Maintenance is in progress. Please try again in a few minutes.

KanriaKyara and Meta are definitely affected.

No warning was given. Again.

Labster, exactly when is the wiki farm's scheduled maintenance window? And if this is happening outside of the maintenance window, why wasn't it announced? I am getting sick of unannounced maintenance getting in the way of wiki work.

[MilkmanConspiracy]

The site is back up.

Current issues in moderation queue:
* Change for X meets Y is suspiciously similar to TVT. Investigating.
* Change to snoot game trivia suggest initial claim that page was original is incorrect?
* 2023 Tales is well meaning, but formatting odd. I’m tempted to ask for more tropes or to just read some of it and fix it myself.

Other not:
* The discord link on the sidebar goes to the Tropedia discord server.

[robkelk]

I reached a milestone today, regarding the number of files without re-use licences that we have.

It's under nine thousand!

(Specifically, as I type this, it's 8,999.)

I think that's enough wiki cleanup for today...

Six weeks later, and we're down to 6622 images without licenses. And of course I'm adding categories as I add licence information.

Mind you, I'm running low on the "low-hanging fruit" that's easy to determine licence and category information for. (It's the "90/90 rule": the first 90% of the project takes 90% of the expected time, and the other 10% of the project takes 90% of the expected time. Good thing this doesn't have a deadline.)

[MilkmanConspiracy]

That’s great news! Thank you for your work!

[MilkmanConspiracy]

I could well be wrong, but the writing style of new user Gottagofast reminds me a lot of Ilovecake. Would a check user be possible to confirm it’s not them?

[robkelk]

I could well be wrong, but the writing style of new user Gottagofast reminds me a lot of Ilovecake. Would a check user be possible to confirm it’s not them?

It should be possible - Ilovecake's last edit was less than two weeks ago. Checkuser has been requested

[Bob Schroeck]

<sigh> In the last few minutes, ATT went down. Again. All I'm seeing is "This site can't be reached - allthetropes.org refused to connect". The KanriKyara wiki is working, so it's not the farm as a whole.

[robkelk]

A quiet little update: I just tossed together and entry-pimped a new work page. (Filling a gap in our Western Animation coverage is my Christmas present to the wiki this year.) It could use more tropes, but seeing that it's for one of The 50 Greatest Cartoons, people have actually seen "The Big Snit", right?

[robkelk]

I could well be wrong, but the writing style of new user Gottagofast reminds me a lot of Ilovecake. Would a check user be possible to confirm it’s not them?

It should be possible - Ilovecake's last edit was less than two weeks ago. Checkuser has been requested

Still waiting for the checkuser

[robkelk]

Checkuser's completed.

---

Oh, for...

Somebody else who has rights to tempban users answer him, please. I've had enough of him.

[MilkmanConspiracy]

I don’t have rights to tempban users, but I did almost reply earlier this morning, before thinking better of it.

As an aside, I’ve been a bit less active due to the holidays. I should have more time afterwards. I did run through a bit of the mod queue backlog this morning when I had some dead time.

There is a trope page that was submitted in the queue that should probably be rejected, but I’m holding off for now because of the holidays and because I’m not that experienced with the trope creation process. Rejection Rationale: The trope name is the exact same as on the other tropes wiki (May be more from there, didn’t dig into page content much) and it did not go through the trope workshop.

[Bob Schroeck]

Checkuser's completed.

I don't get it. What's the result? All I see is "this is done", but not whether the two are the same or not.

Oh, for...

Somebody else who has rights to tempban users answer him, please. I've had enough of him.

Doing it now. But I say that this ass is too much trouble. We bounced him once -- I move we simply permaban him right now and not put up with this crap any further. Once we knew who he was, he was back on sufferance anyway, and I think we've suffered enough.

[robkelk]

I don’t have rights to tempban users, but I did almost reply earlier this morning, before thinking better of it.

As an aside, I’ve been a bit less active due to the holidays. I should have more time afterwards. I did run through a bit of the mod queue backlog this morning when I had some dead time.

No worries. I've already updated the sitenotice to tell people (who know how to read) to expect delays.

And thanks for putting in the work that you had time to do.

There is a trope page that was submitted in the queue that should probably be rejected, but I’m holding off for now because of the holidays and because I’m not that experienced with the trope creation process. Rejection Rationale: The trope name is the exact same as on the other tropes wiki (May be more from there, didn’t dig into page content much) and it did not go through the trope workshop.

The name being the same isn't a deal-breaker, although it's a hint that the content might be the same as well. The trope not going through the Trope Workshop is a deal-breaker, and sufficient grounds for rejection.

[robkelk]

Checkuser's completed.

I don't get it. What's the result? All I see is "this is done", but not whether the two are the same or not.

Oh, for...

Somebody else who has rights to tempban users answer him, please. I've had enough of him.

Doing it now. But I say that this ass is too much trouble. We bounced him once -- I move we simply permaban him right now and not put up with this crap any further. Once we knew who he was, he was back on sufferance anyway, and I think we've suffered enough.

They don't announce the results any more; they just lock duplicate accounts if they're found to be duplicates.

And "Gottagofast" is now globally locked.

So there's our reason to permanently ban "Ilovecake" - abuse of multiple accounts while on tempban.

Doing that now.

[robkelk]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Rodejong does not have ITIL Foundation certification... because I can't see anybody who's actually had IT service training proposing this.

[MilkmanConspiracy]

This isn’t really a surprise given how I edit, but I think a well formatted stub that contains all the critical information a user needs on a topic is actually a really good thing, and in the form of documentation, noting things in laconic form is often best. 

Reason: Naming things on computers is surprisingly hard, and sometimes ambiguous names can lead to different interpretations. It is good practice to leave a line or note explaining what something is meant for precisely.

What I like about the Proposal: The part of their proposal to use language templates is fine, I recall similar things being done on Wikimedia Commons due to it being multilingual. In such projects explicitly noting the language used can help avoid miscommunications between languages that are similar enough to be mutually intelligible, but have false friends that could cause misunderstanding on a casual read.

What I disagree with in the proposal:

• Miraheze Commons isn’t an encyclopedia and this is being used to justify the removal of topics like Wikimedia Commons has. However, Wikimedia Commons is also not an encyclopedia, and it has topics. The logic does not follow. A practical reason as to why topics are counterproductive to the goals of the project should be outlined before they are removed.
  
• Transcoding notable images can have value in a gallery. I don’t think there should be a blanket ban on this, but I understand why it might be discouraged. If disallowed, tooling should be developed to rapidly import images to Miraheze Commons, though that opens a new set of worms if an image from Wikimedia Commons is deleted or updated for good reason, and at that point the wheel is reinvented.
  
• The threshold for a gallery should be 2 images, or if you want to be more strict, 3. Five is arbitrary, and could be a good recommendation but shouldn’t be an end all be all requirement. A gallery is more than the images it contains: The context, and arrangement also make huge differences in the final result. Authors should be given maximum freedom to reasonably express themselves.
  

That said, I know relatively little about Miraheze Commons specifically, so perhaps that is why i struggle to understand what this proposal addresses or solves.

[robkelk]

<sigh> No scheduled maintenance window. That's not ITIL-compliant.

[robkelk]

So, did we get a serial ban-evader for Christmas? It looks to me like "Chickeninvader" (and that name raises a red flag in and of itself) has the same writing style as "ilove*", down to quietly removing an example without explanation.

Am I being paranoid, or should we hold off on approving these (and rejecting the one that deletes an example without explanation) while we ask for a Checkuser? There's already one approved edit in the history.

[MilkmanConspiracy]

I’m in favor of rejecting the one removing an example without explanation.I think it’s understandable to be paranoid about those edits if they’re likely from a ban evader. It’s a bit of a conundrum: Don’t want to punish a non-evading new user, but also don’t want to enable ban evasion by trivializing the consequences.