Topic on User talk:DocColress

I have a serious problem with your post here: https://allthetropes.org/wiki/Topic:Tfx9dz4he82fem4y

User comments are not "gibberish". If you disagree with a comment, then discuss it - do not delete it.

We forked from TV Tropes in part because the admins there at the time of the fork were deleting things that they disagreed with. We promised, in Rule #2 of the Policy for Wiki Staff, that we would not do that: "Disagreement with the Wiki staff is not treason. You will never be banned for disagreeing with wiki policy. You will never have your posts or comments or contributions erased simply because a staff member didn't like what you said. We want to see other opinions and points of view from ours, because we know from experience that we can (and probably will) be wrong on occasion."

Seeing you delete comments that you disagree with is causing me concern.

It's not that "I disagree with the comments" that's the reason I've deleted them rather than discussing, it's because the anonymous user posting them, who is quite possibly a troll, was adding either poorly written and arbitrary entries to those pages' lists but as replies rather than editing the existing list comment (Or can they do that? Is it just admins who can do it?), or even replying to the lists with full on writeups of characters that they believe qualify for the Complete Monster trope. In some cases they added to the "Examples That Should Remain Here" list replies that cited characters who are not even on the trope page to start with, or added to the "Examples That Should NOT Be Seen Here" list replies that cited characters who are on the page for valid reasons.

So it's less what this person had to say and more like how they were saying it and what they were doing repeatedly.

"In some cases they added to the "Examples That Should Remain Here" list replies that cited characters who are not even on the trope page to start with,"

That's called adding examples to the page. We generally encourage that sort of behaviour on the wiki.

But they didn't add examples to the page, they added examples to a list on the page's Discussion page. An example can't "remain" on a page if they're not even on it to start with, which is why adding them to a list called "Examples That Should Remain Here" is so inappropriate and discouraged.

That's sophistry - a Discussion page is still a page.

When you remove entries from a discussion page, you are saying that you do not care to have a discussion with the people who added the entries to the discussion page. Adding text to a discussion page is appropriate and encouraged, in that it starts the discussion.

If we don't allow discussion, then we're no better than the people we forked the wiki to get away from.

Even so, the text added in the way it was is the wrong way to start discussion. If someone asks "can X be an example?" or "why is/isn't X an example?", I've no issue with answering them and engaging in discussion about the matter. I just have no patience for people who act as though things regarding a very carefully monitored and easy to misuse trope was decided without discussion.

We have no control over how people phrase their entries - we have to live with that, and reply as if they posted in a way we think is correct.

I cannot promise I can always do that. Just because we're not TV Tropes doesn't mean we have to be pushovers in how we handle our tropes and pages.

In some ways, yes it does. We do not arbitrarily screw with user content just because we don't like it. We may fix grammar or structure, correct factual errors, even reorganize their presentation for clarity. But we don't delete material just because we don't like how it's presented, or what it presents. Period.

We still have to put our feet down if the content inserted is inaccurate, misuse, and blatantly against a trope and it's stated requirements and purpose. Outright deletion on this Wiki is rare, you're correct on that. But it has been done sometimes and will be done in the future if and only if the user material is blatantly and blissfully disregarding the way things are meant to be done on particular tropes. Period.

I have serious reservations about someone who can use the phrase "the way things are meant to be done on particular tropes" having administrator rights.

Seconded.

I also have concerns about a moderator who uses "foots" instead of "feet". I would like to think that a reasonable grasp of English is a necessity for a moderator.

I think this is probably more Doc only having to generally answer to Geth and therefore this new dynamic staff-wise makes it so what Geth might have understood and not looked too deep into might now be interpreted (as it has), as someone being over-assertive.

From what I can gather, he was made staff because Geth saw him as the solution to the problem per the Wikia fork in regards to Complete Monster, because that's a notorious realm of autism. I'm being blunt here.

Of course it doesn't help that that's the basis of his contribs here, mostly on talk pages saying what is and isn't, and that it seems like there are genuine vandals on this wiki that have tried to fuck with him regarding that. So I can understand part of his frustration. It also doesn't help the rest of us don't really give that much attention in that specific topic, potentially that much attention in any topic.

One potential solution is to see whether Doc can diversify his efforts to other parts of the wiki too. That might help him take his mind off of this particular matter for a bit.

I just think that this can be handled a bit more gently all around, and we don't need to go for any nuclear options yet, as that should be a last resort.

> because that's a notorious realm of autism. I'm being blunt here.

No really, tell us what you think.

For what's it's worth, I sympathize with the sentiment, and I'm an admitted autistic.

However, I agree it's a bit overharsh, especially since, regardless, he has a legit point, Doc has been managing this aspect of the wiki with minimal oversight for so long, and now is having to explain themselves when no one has questioned them before.

I don't have a mod hat on anymore, but I recommend Doc be asked to explain themselves in full, and failing to do so, then drop the hammer. However, depending on how Doc responds, maybe we don't have to throw someone out on their ear.

Thanks Geth. And I've promised to talk things out with whatever user I feel isn't contributing and handling things in a right way rather than just delete their contributions.

Here's what I said down below: I say from now on I'll talk things out with whichever user whose added content I take issue, and will not delete that content unless I am almost certain that the user's a troll who isn't going to compromise.

So if Robkelk, Looney Toons, and NotaBane could lay off attacking me anymore, that'd be great.

At no point have I been attacking you. I have asked questions about your actions and made comments based on your explanations of your actions, which is completely different.

Alright. I hope we've cleared things up now.

I think being defensive per your last sentence won't endear you to them.

How can I not get a little defensive when my judgement and role as an admin is being outright challenged all because I think someone's contributed to my lists the wrong way and don't believe that a super liberal "anyone can do anything with a trope" approach is to be recommended for some subjective tropes that are, quite frankly, misuse magnets like CM.

Your lists? I thought they were the wiki's lists.

Technically they are. I only said that because I personally wrote most of them.

I personally wrote most of the Aiko 3 free resources lists on the Poser and Daz Free Resources wiki. That doesn't make them my lists.

Yeah, and I know NoxiousSludge wrote some of them.

You're digging yourself into a corner here.

By being honest? Look, I've already accepted that I violated a rule and am not going to do it again next time any similar occurrence happens. What more do you want from me?

I want everyone to calm down, that includes you.

Okay.

You'd be correct, Lulz. And Doc -- as fellow mods and wiki administrators, Rob and I (along with the rest of the staff) have a responsibility to see that the admins adhere to the admin rules. If restating the relevant rules in a relevant discussion is "attacking" you, then maybe you don't deserve an admin hat.

I'll say this: Up until now, I've ignored your activities under the assumption that you knew what you were doing, and because as a fellow admin I didn't need to check out what you were doing. No more. I'll abide by whatever decision is made regarding your status. But regardless of what that decision is, from now on I will be checking all your contributions to the wiki.

If we're both admins, we should work something out so that we know better how to both do our part in keeping trope pages, YMMV pages, and discussion pages free of any serious issues. Without having to delete anything unless it's blatant trolling.

I really haven't been following this at all, so it's hard for me to come down on one side or the other. And I don't want to spend the time to investigate all of the history.

But I do feel like Complete Monster needs to be dealt with with a heavier hand than other tropes, specifically because people want to make an objective trope into a subjective trope. The traditional meaning of editing involves a lot of pruning of unwanted parts, and that's good for our overall health. It serves us well to have an administrator moderate this tropes.

It doesn't serve us well to have an administrator deleting edits to talk pages. Talk pages are not the wiki, and people are allowed to have wrong opinions. Deleting revisions should be reserved for harassment, extreme vandalism, and the like.

> You will never have your posts or comments or contributions erased simply because a staff member didn't like what you said.

All There in the Manual. So really there was a line crossed, and since there was the same kind of apology/mea culpa I'd expect, I'm going to propose a two-week suspension of administrator abilities for DocColress. Which is not really intended to be much of a punishment, just a reminder to please not do this again.

Can't really disagree here.

We have a rule, and there needs to be a price to pay if the rule is broken. It doesn't matter who it was who broke the rule.

I don't know whether this punishment is in line with the action, though. Nobody raised the issue before now, so we bear some of the blame in not mentioning these concerns earlier. Two weeks might be too long.

I'd say one week would work well for me. Don't you think so?

I guess. Honestly I thought that two weeks seemed too light because I'd hardly notice it. There'd be like 3 pages I'd want to delete, and I'd just tag 'em with {{delete}} and move on.

That's what I think too.

Complete Monster is a subjective trope - it just has an objective criteria for what can qualify examples.

How about one week for the suspension. Afterwards I intend to keep my word to respond to whatever bothers me about a user's new contributions rather than trying to erase it outright. Sound fair?

That seems fair to me.

Acceptable.

Good. Please tell Robkelk that that's what's been worked out.

Sometimes there are very specific tropes that have very firm requirements for what can go there and whether or not the matter of whatever the user has in mind for it must be discussed before it goes on. That's not draconian policy, it's common sense.

But you were deleting that very discussion, and then erasing history by deleting the talk page and recreating it from scratch with your preferred revision. (Or so it appeared to this non-administrator who cannot see deleted revisions of pages.)

That's pretty much it.

I say from now on I'll talk things out with whichever user whose added content I take issue, and will not delete that content unless I am almost certain that the user's a troll who isn't going to compromise.

Just posting here as a regular user now, but Doc, I agree. Even if you think it's stupid, leave it up, don;t lose your cool. Second, even if they are a problem child you know from somewhere else, only block them after leaving evidence in the block log why you did so, it should prevent misunderstandings later.

I think this user's misbehavior is self-evident since they keep on coming back without any real user name and making arbitrary replies as extension of the Discussion Page lists rather than adding to the lists or discussing things with admins or other users before contributing.

It can't be self-evident - you keep destroying the evidence. And I don't recall seeing any rule saying you have to have an account here to contribute.

I presented the evidence to GethN7 in the past. By this point I've just gotten sick of that particular user's BS.

Doc, I surrendered my mod flag, so you need to explain this crap to other people now.

I'm trying my best here.

I see you've done it again: https://allthetropes.org/w/index.php?title=Topic:Tffbxxddbcsx9qc2&curid=0&diff=0&oldid=0

You deleted this with the listed reason "Double", but the copy you deleted had a comment from somebody who is not you and the copy you kept has content from only you.

You did this after agreeing to stop doing this.

I withdraw my concern that a two-week loss of admin rights for you might be too long, and propose a minimum one-month loss of admin rights for you.

Actually, the comment was hidden by the contributor for whatever reason. We don't know what it said, there was no discussion made from it, so I figured I'd delete that one and keep the one that has yet to get any comments or discussion on it. If a comment is ever left on it, it can and will be answered.

So no, I don't think that's in any way a reasonable suspension of admin rights for me.

Then you should have deleted the copy that was only your text and kept the copy with the hidden comment from another contributor. What I saw here was you hiding evidence that somebody other than you made a contribution, even if the other person subsequently removed that contribution.

There is abiding by the rules, and there is showing that one is abiding by the rules. Admins need to do both of these things.

The evidence and the contribution itself was hidden already, so I wasn't intending to hide anything. I was getting rid of something I'd think would be unwanted and redundant for a talk page. I probably should have alerted someone first or explained my reason for deletion in better detail.

I'm really sorry. Just please - please stop assuming the worst of me?

All of that seems to be, but when you start an Edit War with another administrator, at least use more than one word in the deletion notice. You owe it to us so that you we don't have to hear after-the-fact justifications.

I might have made the same choice, but maybe it was not the right choice to be made right now.

I'm sorry. I probably should have alerted someone first or explained my reason for deletion in better detail. I hope I'm not punished for a month over one mistake. :(

You're not going to be punished for a month. I'm asserting founder privilege (which is definitely a real thing and not something I just made up) and making it two weeks. I feel like this should be long enough for both everyone to calm down a bit, and also give us time to reflect on what the roles of administrators should be.

DocColress, you are welcome to continue editing the wiki as normal, though I expect you -- and everyone else -- to remain courteous to your fellow editors.

Why not one week like we'd previous agreed on? Two weeks feels a bit disproportionate to my mistakes plus one accident (deleting a duplicate discussion on a Talk page and getting in trouble just because it happened to be one that had a hidden comment from another user on it.)

That's not going to be an issue, don't worry.

If two weeks of not being able to delete pages seems a like a big punishment, you maybe need to reevaluate life priorities. This is not that big of a deal.

There was no previous agreement, and people were getting increasingly upset, so I decided to resolve the issue. There seemed to be community consensus that a temporary suspension of admin privileges was appropriate but waffling on how long. Since privilege assignment is a bureaucrat task, that leaves me, GethN7, and Looney Toons. And GethN7 is uh, on break, so really we just needed someone to make a decision.

I think maybe we did a bad job of communicating community norms. The punishment for the other administrators is to do the work that DocColress would be doing in the meantime.

But this is in no way meant to be an attack. People just felt you stepped out of line, and we've asked you to stop, some unwise decisions led to some misunderstandings. People felt like there should be consequences, because if there aren't consequences, the rules on staff are meaningless. As far as I'm concerned, the whole thing will be over on April 1, and we'll be lucky to have you as an administrator, DocColress.

two weeks of not being able to delete pages

That right there is making me out to be the enemy. Where did I say that "deleting pages" was my concern, or all I'd want to use my admin powers for? I'd already promised to no longer delete any contributions as a first measure against something I don't agree with before this two weeks suspension was decided upon.

I'm not opposed to taking some time off from any administration on this wiki. What I'm opposed to is the hate I've been getting, the way I'm being treated like I'm some danger to the wiki who has repeatedly violated rules out of some draconian agenda I supposedly have, even though the rule violations that my actions entailed was literally never articulated to me until just recently. I can't help but feel like I alone am suffering the punishment and consequences of something that could have been avoided had I been told a long time back that it was better and more in line with the rules that I respond to comments and talk with the contributor about what I disagreed with them about than to just delete their contributions.

All this whining is making it worse than yourself, stop emotionally investing yourself and projecting what we believe/perceive about you.

Hate would imply that we've acted in a uncivil manner, this is contrary to what has actually happened, and also to compare us to TVT (which you have done before about this topic) is bordering on insult due to the fact that it's blatantly false and how they would have handled this would be worse and you know that to be true.

We've already stated about the fact that we haven't gone around to this sooner, this is just going around in circles.

Geth and LT are not in the picture at this present moment due to their own separate circumstances and therefore Lab has had to make a decision as the only crat on-duty at this specific moment.

Stop making yourself the victim, that constant trend in your behaviour towards that has been really unappealing.

BTW, I was the one who was exercising caution regarding this whole situation and how to handle it, so I'm not going to assume good faith if you respond to this acting like I have done you a personal injustice.

I've told you multiple times and you haven't listened. I recommend you start:

Calm down.

Apologies if I'm projecting, but you and Robkelk have not been coming off as very kind or reasonable towards me in these discussions, what with all the assumptions being made about what I believe and what the intentions behind my activities on the wiki are.

TV Tropes still would have done worse were they handling something like this, I'll admit that.

And I'm not "making myself the victim" - to my knowledge, I'm literally the only one paying any consequences for what's happened here. You've stated about the fact that you haven't gone around to this sooner, but that's it. Simply stating something can't be equated to getting a suspension for something.

No, I actually don't think you have done me a personal injustice, and I'm not blaming you personally for anything that's gone on here. I just think all of us ought to calm down. I'll accept my suspension for the remainder of the month. If I see any serious bullshit that I'm unable to counter due to my admin powers being suspended, I'll alert someone about it and we'll see what can be done. When I'm an admin again I'll not repeat the exact same mistakes I made before, but I'm not about to go totally soft on trolls, webpage abusers, and trope misuse just because we don't have the exact same standards and practices as TV Tropes - they didn't get strict and draconian with their rules for no reason after all.

Sorry if I offended you. The main use I have for admin right is deleting pages -- actually moving without redirects, but the same idea -- so I applied that to you. I didn't meant to imply anything else.

Oh. Apology accepted. We've just been misunderstanding and miscommunicating with each other a lot here. I just want this all to end already.

Doc, I've already explained in the thread you started on my Talk page why I did what I did... and after I wrote that, you posted here calling me unkind and unreasonable. That isn't very nice.

Why are you drawing this out when it doesn't need to be drawn out?

Calm down.

I'm calm now, don't worry. :)