User talk:DocColress

Jump to navigation Jump to search

About this board

Not editable

A kitten for you!

Hi, welcome to All The Tropes!

Here it's the same way it is on the Tropes Mirror Wiki. I'm just the guy who tries to keep things running, and if you need help, just ask me or another admin.

I hope you have a fun time here. :)

GethN7 (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For completely averting Complete Monster while cleaning up all the Complete Monster pages. Vorticity (talk) 09:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Norman Osborn

Hey man, I noticed that you added Norman Osborn from the first Sam Raimi Spider-Man film and I have to say that I'm a little unsure if he truly fits. I mean, while the Green Goblin side of him is a definite monster and Norman was rather cold to Harry at times, Norman still wanted to make up with Harry and genuinely apologized for the way he treated him. Hell, he even hugged him! While he did go after Mary Jane and ended up putting Spider-Man in a real nasty spot with his sadistic choice moment (And implying that he was going to rape her along with murdering her doesn't help in the slightest), I interpreted that scene as the Goblin side coming out when Harry mentioned that she liked Peter. And even after when he tried to play nice while attempting to impale Peter on his glider (Another scene where I feel that the Goblin was in more control than Norman was), he still seemed to care enough about Harry for his final words to be begging Peter not to tell Harry about his actions as the Green Goblin. Is the reason you consider him a monster because of the fact that Norman ended up going along with the Goblin's plans after that conversation they had in Norman's mirror?

And about the whole thing regarding Norman's presence corrupting Harry, I personally thought those scenes were more of Harry's thoughts regarding his anger at Spider-Man supposedly killing his dad materializing as opposed to Norman's ghost trying to turn him evil. Then again, unlike the first movie which I last saw about two months ago, I haven't seen the second or third ones for a long time so if it was made clear that it was Norman's ghost trying to corrupt Harry, I may have forgotten about it.

So yeah, that's all I really had to say. I certainly feel that the Green Goblin is still the most evil of the Raimi-verses' villains, I just feel that Norman doesn't quite qualify due to these moments where he does show that ultimately, he does care about Harry. Still, I'm not going to be a dick and axe the entry before we talk more about your thoughts on Norman. The preceding comment was added by NoxiousSludge (talk contribs)

DocColress: I don't know who sent this, but let me give my thoughts on the matter.

I think you let Wilem Dafoe's acting in the moment where he apologized and hugged Harry fool you: that, like his "apology" and plea for mercy and forgiveness to Peter towards the end, was not Norman himself: it was the Goblin. The Goblin side didn't "come out" when Harry mentioned MJ and Peter: it was already there. At the start of that scene, Harry could hear the Goblin's cackles coming from upstairs, and immediately following the hug we see a shot of the Goblin. This scene was meant to be the moment where any and all humanity in Norman died out and he truly became the Goblin. And his "apology" amounted to "I'm going to make everything up to you by rectifying certain ends" - which was code for killing MJ and Peter, something Harry would not want at all, so he's still being a crappy father. Remember that even in the comics and The Spectacular Spider-Man, both in which Norman is listed as a CM, Norman loved Harry as his son: he just didn't like him as a person because he's not what he wanted him to be. Same here in this movie, he has no unconditional love for Harry. The only series I can recall him having that was the 90's animated series, where he truly didn't qualify due to redeeming qualities and genuine Split Personality.

Yeah, his last words were "Peter - don't tell Harry." Look at what happened because he didn't? Harry believes Spider-Man to have killed his father and that sends him down a path to carrying on the Goblin's legacy. So I think it's meant to be ambiguous whether or not it was Norman or Goblin in control of Norman's last moments, though considering that Norman hadn't been himself for a while, the latter is likely.

What a lot of people miss is that "the Green Goblin" isn't an actual Split Personality: he's the manifestation of who Norman truly is at his core. The movie obscures this a bit by using the typical Jekyll-Hyde, Smeagol-Gollum technique, but the mirror scene and the scene with the mask later are meant to be metaphorical for Norman literally confronting his own inner demon and ultimately succumbing to it. The scene at the board meeting ending on Norman giving an evil Psychotic Smirk suggests that Norman, in both times he became the Goblin to take care of his problems through murder, was fully aware of what he was doing at the time of committing the acts but due to overexertion of the Goblin formula he took, blacked out after he was done and then lost his memory of his actions after he woke up again - just like what happened when he underwent the experiment and killed Dr. Stromm. So prior to the mirror scene, Norman was suffering from black-outs and temporary amnesia, NOT Split Personality. One could argue that deep down he did know about the things he did but didn't want to owe up to them until the mirror scene happened and he started having psychotic episodes. He didn't want to see himself as a crazy monster, but he was. And yes, he did choose to go along with his Goblin nature afterwards, as evidenced at Thanksgiving where he very knowingly says "work was murder" and acts suspiciously regarding Peter the whole time. There's a difference between being complex and tortured, and being sympathetic with truly redeeming features. Norman is the former, not the latter. (Disney's Judge Frollo is another example of it. His reasoning for sparing baby Quasimodo, the "Hellfire" sequence, and even his last moments are all very Norman-esque, with the man confronting his inner darkness but denying it's truly there, choosing to blame someone else so that he can go on with his monstrosity as he pleases.)

Like Norman's last words, it's meant to be ambiguous as to whether or not this is a Hamlet situation where Harry's father's ghost is haunting him, or just a figment of Harry's insane imagination. What matters, though, is that Harry wouldn't even have this psychological state if not for Norman's abuse, and that the "ghost" he sees is exactly how the real Norman would behave. He wouldn't want to dissuade Harry from taking the path he did: he'd want him to embrace it, since he'd finally be becoming a man like him, just as he always wanted.

And again, he does indeed care about Harry. He always does, even in the comics where he chose to initiate the Clone Saga scheme because he learned of his son's demise. But that's not the same as truly loving him as a person, and movie Norman otherwise does fit the criteria. He's the most evil villain as you said, his humanity is not adequate in the face of what a heinous creature he becomes, his remorse is never shown or confirmed to be sincere, and not only is he never redeemed, but the films choose to portray his posthumous character as something evil. Only the butler ever had anything kind to say about the late Norman, but that's because he never saw the monster he was inside. And "the monster that walks among us" has always been what Norman's character was all about. The preceding comment was added by DocColress (talk contribs)

First off, that was me, NoxiousSludge who asked you. I'm sorry I forgot to leave my signature behind.

But more importantly, I can see more of where you're coming from now. I'm sorry if I ended up sounding like a moron by contesting Norman's status because to me, it just seemed like Norman was suffering from a classic case of Jekyll and Hyde syndrome and thinking about it, it does make sense that the Goblin is actually who Norman really is deep down at his core. If anything, I'm impressed by your analysis regarding his character in the film as it seems that a lot of people seemed to miss that point and share my initial view on Norman. Heck, you seem to have a good head on your shoulders in general and are a lot more fair than TV Trope's cleanup crew. I just wish we had a way to communicate with PM's and the like so I wouldn't flood your User Talk page with discussion about potential examples for the trope, cuts, and so on and so forth. --NoxiousSludge (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2014 (BST)NoxiousSludge

DocColress: No, you didn't sound like a moron at all since debate is encouraged here. I can see why some would think Norman had some redeeming qualities because he is a tragic figure, but tragic doesn't always equate to sympathetic or redeemable. And at the end of the day, he was easily the heinous standard setter of that trilogy. (Dennis Carridine was a one-dimensional thug, Doc Ock, Harry Osborn, and Sandman were all different flavors of Anti Villain, the Symbiote lacked moral agency, and Eddie Brock was a psychopath who could have theoretically been redeemed had he not embraced the symbiote, and even as Venom he only killed one person, which doesn't stack up against the Goblin's crimes.)

Thanks, I've been told! (Though I've been told otherwise by people who share the cleanup crew's views). I wish that too. Are you still on TV Tropes? 'Cause I am, but under a different name. I stick with it even though I know ATT is better, particularly in regards to this trope. xD

Nah, I don't really use that site anymore for editing as I mainly browse nowadays. I've thought about starting a new account at some point, but for now I'm simply enjoying my time here. What name do you go under there? I get the feeling I may have seen you post in the clean-up thread a couple of times.

And I may start a new topic as a way not to inflate this one, but I've looked at the Film section and noticed quite a few Marvel film examples, both in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the other unrelated films. Do you think that we should make a Marvel Films subpage that we can put Colonel Stryker, Sebastian Shaw, Green Goblin, Bullseye, Red Skull, Obadiah Stane, and Aldrich Killian on? --NoxiousSludge (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2014 (BST)NoxiousSludge

DocColress: Anew_man, formerly something else before I got banned for a time due to the ugly incident of Ghetsis' removal from the trope. :(

Eh, I have no problems with how it is now, but if you could give it a shot if you want. I wouldn't be opposed to it.

Can I ask you for $1?

We're 9 days into our 30 day campaign, and we've raised $537. That's fantastic! The idea of Orain, our message, our purpose - it means something. The belief that there can be a community led, a community ran, and a community funded website that's not ad-driven or profit based works.

Our community has believed in us from the beginning, and I firmly believe that our community will stand by us and continue to support us. It's okay if we don't reach our $5,000 goal. $5,000 was a best case scenario. $1,000 enables us to stay online another year. It enables us to keep looking at alternatives and other ways to stay online and cut costs. $500 halves that time and shortens our research ability. 11% of our goal is better than 0% of our goal.

I've made a pledge from the beginning. I've vowed to never force ads on this community for the purpose of keeping Orain alive. Ads are what separate us from the other farms we compete with. I will give my personal funds before I enable ads by force. Ads are a nuisance that you should have a voice in. We've toyed with and are developing the idea of individual wikis who want ads within their community. Some people can't donate a dollar, and that's okay. That's their way of giving and I'm down for that.

To the backers who have helped so far, Thank you!

If you haven't had a chance to donate so far, please please do. Your $1 will help make a difference in the WikiFarm world. You can help us stay online, free, and ad free.

If you have a little more than a dollar and want an Orain t-shirt, we've got those. We've also got hoodies, coffee cups, and blankets. Most of these things will have to be purchased in bulk so there's likely going to be an online store for the leftover donation drive items once the campaign is over.

As always, I want to hear from you. If you have ideas to help our Indiegogo campaign please send them to me or email me.

I apologize for spamming you like this, but I love Orain, I believe in Orain, and I want to fight to keep it alive. If you no longer want to receive urgent messages like these, please send me an email and I'll ensure that you're not bothered further.

With love,
Dustin "Dusti" Muniz
06:38, 14 January 2015 (GMT)

Previous page history was archived for backup purposes at User talk:DocColress/LQT Archive 1 on 2016-05-31.

Your edit to Pokémon Sword and Shield/YMMV has been undone

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

You removed entries from Pokémon Sword and Shield/YMMV without any explanation. This is a violation of All The Tropes:There is No One True Way, which is a core policy of this wiki.

The entry that you added for Base Breaking Character has been retained, with attribution to you.

Please note that "Removing without explanation text that was previously presented as opinion, on a page where opinions are acceptable" is specifically listed at All The Tropes:How We Do Bans Around Here as an example of activity that is grounds for a warning on the first occurrence and a tempban on a repeated occurrence. Please consider this to be your warning.

@Labster @GethN7 @Looney Toons @QuestionableSanity @Derivative @SelfCloak @DocColress

Why did you delete Complete Monster/Tales of Berseria?

Summary by DocColress

Someone come and delete this from this page...

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

You had two days to veto that page move at Talk:Complete Monster before the page move was made. EDIT: And the Recent Changes log shows you were online and editing during those two days.

I have restored the page.

And if a page with one entry is your definition of "spam", then (a) you need to learn what spam really is, and (b) I need to unprotect the Complete Monster pages because they were semi-protected under false pretenses.

@Labster @GethN7 @Looney Toons @QuestionableSanity @DocColress @LulzKiller @SelfCloak

Looney Toons (talkcontribs)

Seconded. We have plenty of pages with only one entry on them. That is not at de facto definition of spam.

GethN7 (talkcontribs)

Thirded. I'd rather we keep the page and eliminate repeats on other pages as opposed to removing it.

DocColress (talkcontribs)

I hadn't seen the notification asking me for vetoing it or not. I veto it now because we already have a Complete Monster page for examples from the Tales series to go to, and that entry for the Tales of Berseria monster is already there well before this page's creation. There is no logic in making a separate page for a single example in a single game when we already have that example in a page for all entries in that game series.

DocColress (talkcontribs)
Looney Toons (talkcontribs)

That is still not a definition of "spam".

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

And it looks to me like we have a project - take all those one-offs listed on pages about multiple works and split them out into pages for single works.

I have restored Complete Monster/Tales of Berseria again. EDIT: And protected it.

I have added Category:Multiple Works Need Separate Pages to Complete Monster/Tales (series).

Robkelk (talkcontribs)
Looney Toons (talkcontribs)

Likewise - I vote for "1".

DocColress (talkcontribs)

I still vote for 4, but even 2 or 3 would be better than 1. To put it simply, a trope page that has only 1 entry on it is pure cringe and cannot justify it's existence.

Looney Toons (talkcontribs)

In the unlikely event that you win, Doc, you have just volunteered to "fix" every other one-example page on the wiki. Because if it becomes policy, it's policy for everything, not just your personal little bailiwick. Hope you have a lot of free time.

DocColress (talkcontribs)

I will make time if I have to. Honestly, I did not think that one-example pages were a thing. I'd assumed that even pages still under construction would contain two examples at most.

Looney Toons (talkcontribs)

Your ignorance should not be the grounds for a universal policy.

DocColress (talkcontribs)

@Looney Tunes: I did not delete under the reasoning of "spam" this time.

@Robkelk: I want GethN7 to weigh in on this. Because, to be blunt, your project idea sounds completely ridiculous, redundant, and painfully needless. Pages that cover multiple works have worked out perfectly fine for years now, on this Wiki as well as on TV Tropes. There is no logical reasoning whatsoever in taking all the one-offs and turning them into separate pages. If we have a Complete Monster page for characters in the Tales series, there is no need to break them all into separate pages. Same goes for series' like Mario, The Legend of Zelda, Kingdom Hearts, Ace Attorney, Dragon Ball, Digimon, Pokemon, Mega Man, Mortal Kombat, Sailor Moon, Sonic the Hedgehog, Star Wars, Yu-Gi-Oh!, etc. Increasing the page count for Complete Monster subpages due to making separate whole pages for individual entries in series' is quite possibly the silliest proposal I have ever heard.

How many entries are required for a subpage? I vote for "4." If all it takes is 1 entry, then it's barely even a page.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

We have been splitting up pages that cover multiple works for years now. We even have a category for them that is permanently linked from the Community Portal.

This isn't my idea; it was in force before I became an admin.

EDIT: And I just saw your Relationship request to become my foe. I rejected it. Do you really want somebody who can take away admin rights as a foe?

Derivative (talkcontribs)

I feel like if the 'foe' feature is going to cause that much bother, what's the point in keeping it? I don't have much perspective to contribute in the years long drama that is the CM domain of ATT, but can we all remain calm please?

Also SocialProfile is broken on ATT per editing profiles and databases, but that's another matter for another time; if someone is willing to help create a Phabricator report, that'd be great.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

Agreed on the "foe" feature. Why do we even have that button?

DocColress (talkcontribs)

I cannot recall when splitting up pages like that was a thing for tropes like Complete Monster. What works for things like Awesome, Funny, Heartwarming, Nightmare Fuel, Tearjerker, Wild Mass Guessing, Headscratchers, Laconic, etc. when applied to individual works does not work for Complete Monster.

EDIT: Do you? I suggest we wait for GethN7 to weigh in on this matter before it can be resolved definitively. Until then, my veto stands firm. We do not need a Complete Monster subpage dedicated to a single example from a single installment of a series that already has a Complete Monster subpages where examples from that series go to.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

Do I ... want to take away your admin rights? Not without a discussion amongst all of the bureaucrats first and a majority agreement that it's necessary. But if one of the other bureaucrats takes them away, I won't undo the action.

GethN7 (talkcontribs)

MOD HAT ON: Fine, since you want an opinion, here is mine.

If we have to choose between a dedicated page for just one specific example or lump multiple examples across a series, I prefer the former.

I really, really want to avoid repeated information that the latter is prone to providing, and even if a page has just one example, we can use that page to make sure cloned examples do not exist on other pages.

Series examples would be better served on a communal page for CMs that span multiple works in a series, since they can't be pigeonholed to just one specific work.

That's my take on what should be done.

As for making unilateral decisions, that's why we have a majority rule. You've done a fine job keeping the CM pages under control, Doc, but in this case, I must firmly oppose your fiat decision making as completely inappropriate, and if you want to be obstinate about it, then you might be better off with out your mod powers for awhile.

If you'd like to make a compelling argument why I'm wrong, I'm open to hearing it, as would anyone else, but if your logic fails to sway the majority, then I suggest you accept what the majority have ruled.

DocColress (talkcontribs)

"Lump multiple examples across a series" is how Complete Monster has always been done. Like, since the trope's beginning on this wiki. It's still done that way on TV Tropes and is a far more sensible way of grouping together examples of characters who qualify for the trope as defined by the trope's criteria than making a whole bunch of different subpages based on single installments of the larger series or category, especially if that single installment contains only a single character who matches the criteria for qualifying as a Complete Monster.

For example, say we were to make a subpage for every single game in the Final Fantasy series that has an example. In some of those games, there is only one character who matches the criteria needed to qualify as a Complete Monster. But now that the single games have their own pages, what's to stop someone from either adding new elaboration on the character so that the page becomes nothing but rambling about how evil that character is, or possibly adding a character who doesn't qualify? It opens a can of worm that I'd prefer we not open.

There should be a limit to how liberally we use tropes and how far we take "We Are Not TV Tropes". This right here is a line that needn't be crossed.

Series examples would be better served on a communal page for CMs that span multiple works in a series, since they can't be pigeonholed to just one specific work.

But isn't that how it's already been done? This whole mess started because someone felt that because a game's YMMV page only contained a Complete Monster entry, the page should be turned into a Complete Monster page just for that one entry, even though we already had a Tales series Complete Monster page and it already contains not only that example, but that exact entry, word-for-word. In no logical universe should we have both a Complete Monster subpage for the Tales series AND a Complete Monster subpage dedicated to just one character from one of the Tales games. It just makes no sense. In any event, the YMMV page for Tales of Berseria now includes another trope entry aside from Complete Monster, so that should be cause for this matter to be deemed irrelevant and dropped.

I apologize for my inappropriate decision making and again apologize for missing out on when I was expected to Yay or Nay the creation of that page. Sometimes real life will be in the way and I won't have time to tend to a matter on this Wiki until later. But had I tended to the matter sooner, I would veto the notion to make that page, so I feel my veto, while belated, should still be valid. I say Nay to the existence of Complete Monster/Tales of Berseria under the reasoning of Complete Monster/Tales (series) already exists for the purpose of housing examples of the trope that come from all games in the Tales series.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)
"Lump multiple examples across a series" is how Complete Monster has always been done. Like, since the trope's beginning on this wiki.

Which simply means that bringing Complete Monster into line with other tropes on the wiki is a move that's long overdue.

For example, say we were to make a subpage for every single game in the Final Fantasy series that has an example. In some of those games, there is only one character who matches the criteria needed to qualify as a Complete Monster. But now that the single games have their own pages, what's to stop someone from either adding new elaboration on the character so that the page becomes nothing but rambling about how evil that character is, or possibly adding a character who doesn't qualify?

Why not let people ramble? These are subpages, so the "no natter in the main page" rule doesn't apply. Adding additional supporting information is IMHO a good thing.

I'll come back to the "character who doesn't qualify" bit in a moment.

This right here is a line that needn't be crossed.

In your opinion. As far as I can tell, the rest of us crossed it years ago.

In any event, the YMMV page for Tales of Berseria now includes another trope entry aside from Complete Monster, so that should be cause for this matter to be deemed irrelevant and dropped.

Now it's time to come back to the "character who doesn't qualify" bit. YMMV pages are for subjective examples, but you want to control what gets posted as an example of Complete Monster.

  • If CM is a subjective trope, then you're placing the opinion of a mod above the opinions of average tropers - which is what All The Tropes was forked away from TV Tropes to get away from.
  • If CM is a not subjective trope, then it was right and proper that the page that I moved be taken out of YMMV. (If it's been added back in, then it should come out again.)
But had I tended to the matter sooner, I would veto the notion to make that page, so I feel my veto, while belated, should still be valid.

The more I think about it - and especially in light of the comment I just made about why ATT forked away from TVT - the less I like the idea of somebody on the admin team having a veto over what other tropers are or are not allowed to post, as long as what's posted is on-topic for the wiki.

TL;DR: Your argument for the wiki doing things your way is, IMHO, a set of good reasons why we should stop doing things your way.

DocColress (talkcontribs)

Complete Monster is a subjective character-based trope. Those types of tropes aren't handled the same way as many other tropes on the wiki.

Additional supporting information is a good thing, sure. If the "no natter on the main page" rule doesn't apply, we can allow it, I guess.

Ah, so if the rest of you crossed a line, that explains the problem. Working with absolutely zero restrictions would only make things go wild on the edits on this Wiki like what happened on the Wikia version of this site. Not being ultra Draconian and strict with adherence to rules and guidelines like on TV Tropes isn't exactly licence for total lawlessness in terms of what we could do.

I don't want to control what gets posted as an example. The trope has plainly laid out criteria that controls that, and characters who come close enough to the mark are allowed to be cited as examples on YMMV page just as much as characters who definitively check off all points of the criteria.

It IS a subjective trope, even if not entirely so due to the criteria in place that a character needs to pass in order to qualify as an example of the trope. CM being a subjective trope is what puts it on YMMV pages in the first place, and most of the examples cited on subpages will also be cited on the YMMV pages of their work. If average tropers consider Innominat to be a CM, then he can be cited as an example on both the YMMV page for the game he's featured in and on the Tales series CM subpage. There has never been a problem with having them on both.

I would never veto a character getting added as a CM to a YMMV page, but I would veto the idea of making that character's CM entry into a page unto itself when there's already an existing page for that example to go on.

TL;DR: I don't want the Wiki to do things "my way", I want them to do things in a way that is sensible.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)
I don't want to control what gets posted as an example.

In that case, there is no reason for you to have a veto.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)
DocColress (talkcontribs)

In that case, there is no reason for you to have a veto.

Uh, I'm not vetoing Innominat as an example - he stays. But on the Tales (series) page, not on a subpage for the game all unto itself.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

You misunderstand.

Since you don't want to control what gets posted as an example, there is no reason for you to have a veto. At all. On any Complete Monster subpage. Or regarding the existence (or lack thereof) of any Complete Monster subpage.

If somebody wanted to put together a page "Complete Monster/Monty Python's Flying Circus", there is no reason for you to have a veto over it, or over what appears on it. You don't want to control what gets posted as an example.

If somebody wanted to put together a page "Complete Monster/Real Life", there is no reason for you to have a veto over it, or over what appears on it. You don't want to control what gets posted as an example. (I would object to the existence of such a page on the grounds of the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment, but an objection is not a veto.)

GethN7 (talkcontribs)

I have posted a blog linked in the site header to centralize all discussions on this topic, please refer to that and comment as appropriate.

DocColress (talkcontribs)

I have no idea what Robkelk is even saying anymore.

I would have to veto such things because that would be blatant misuse of the trope. Pure comedies and real life do not lend themselves to this trope.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

Just to prepare you for the worst case in advance

GethN7 (talkcontribs)

Doc, because I want to avoid future upset before it starts, and because I want to be fair and impartial to all sides while not prejudicing anyone, here's something I propose to you in the worst case.

Worst case, this branch of ATT cuts all examples globally and you don;t get you mod hat back. If that happens,here's my proposal.

I really don't want to burn down an entire wheat field just because of a few recurrent tares in the wheat, but I will be duty bound to accept the majority decision on the topic if they do that. I will also be forced to accept if your mod hat is not restored here, and I will do both without complaint if I'm overruled.

That said, the ATT Wikia branch is essentially mine to run as I see fit, and I'm not going to cave because of a bunch of idiots who have to ruin fun for legitimate users unless the problem gets as bad as Troper Pales/Fetish Fuel did, and I'm sure we can avoid that sewer personally. In the worst case, you are free, within the limits I proposed here, to make sure that branch (the Wikia one) retains the topic while ruthlessly cauterizing out all CONFIRMED sockpuppeters who can't agree to a mutually agreed CM standard.

In the worst case, that's the best deal I can offer you without exceeding my own personal powers on this branch, and if worst comes to worst, that's what you'll have to accept in the worst case.

I just want a yes or no on whether you can live with that.

DocColress (talkcontribs)

I'm going to be completely honest and say no, I don't think I could live with that.

I gave more time and effort to this trope on THIS branch of ATT than on the Wikia one. It's the one I preferred working with and the one I enjoyed looking at more. The last thing I would ever want to see is for it to all go because of that stupid ban evader. If that happens, she wins.

So far only Rob and Looney Toons have advocated for a total purge. You and I both disagreed with that, Mark D. Gordon is likely against it 'cause it's in response to him doing the right thing in regards to an actual vandal, and Lulzkiller doesn't seem to care either way, but seems uncertain about it since they brought up ulterior approaches to handling the matter.

Since I've agreed to the terms you put forward for should I get my mod status back, I think you should request for the arguing on the example nuke proposal to be slowed down and the proposal left on the table until a clear majority consensus is gathered, and in the meantime, also put it with the majority whether or not I should have my mod status back. Also, if you read my private messages, I've suggested you bring your own mod hammer down in getting Robkelk to actually think his proposal through, as I feel he is dangerously close to stepping out of bounds and trying to decide the fate of an entire trope with a lot of example content purely due to feeling distraught over his own personal failings to understand what is and is not permitted in regards to handling edits and entries to this trope.

GethN7 (talkcontribs)

I've made an XML dump of the pages for the Complete Mosnter trope from this wiki so you can have them set back up on a wiki of your choosing, you can ask Miraheze to set it up for you and I'll help you get it off the ground if need be.

If you're fine with that, here's the XML in 7z file, you can ask Miraheze staff to do the import:!AvXB4VoJWlMVj0bU

DocColress (talkcontribs)

The problem is that I don't know where and how to "ask Miraheze to set it up for me" or how to get it off the ground or any of that complicated stuff. Also, if only the Complete Monster pages are imported but not the other trope and work pages, then there'll be a bunch of red sinkholes that lead nowhere, and I'm not sure I'd like seeing that.

I just...I just can't wrap my head around why purging the trope is even being considered solely because you and Mark took the correct actions in dealing with a literal vandal and serial ban evader. How THAT PERSON and her edits are dealt with should not be viewed as being indicative of how EVERYONE ELSE and THEIR edits are to be dealt with. Robkelk is looking at this all wrong.

GethN7 (talkcontribs)

The sinkholes can be dealt with by a bot and what are called interwiki links to pages here, I can work on getting that fixed for you very easily.

And Doc, let me be blunt. a lot of people just want the drama to disappear, and if exiling all the examples will achieve that, so be it in their eyes. You can try persuading people to reconsider, but if you lose the vote against it, I'm offering you a chance to have the next best thing without throwing away your hard work.

Also, you start with setting a new wiki up on Miraheze here:

DocColress (talkcontribs)

The drama that sprung this proposition was only attaining to a single ban evader, though. Beyond that, there has been nothing unfairly imposed upon the site's regulars.

I'm thankful that there is a next best thing and I will take it if it comes to that. But since nothing is to be settled for at least a week, could I suggest that you start another blog entry about his matter and possibly ask for a consensus about whether or not I should have my mod status restored? Because (and you can quote me on this) I am making a solemn vow right now to not only be less heavy-handed in the measures I take to keep the trope neat, orderly, and free of misuse, but to always discuss matters with others before taking any particularly drastic actions regarding any newly made edits on the subpages, as well as before making any big edits I'd be considering making myself. And this way, the trope will become much more manageable if we all communicate better, don't disregard anyone's contributions so long as the Criteria is being followed, and stop with the pointless drama surrounding disagreements or misunderstandings about the trope. If we can work towards this, the drama will (hopefully) disappear.

GethN7 (talkcontribs)

Glad you'll accept my fallback offer if worst comes to worst.

As for whether your mod bit comes back, that will be decided after the fate of CM here is evaluated, and not before. The CM issue resolution will make that easier to determine anyway.

DocColress (talkcontribs)

At this point, I'm ready to take that fallback.

My mod bit is likely never coming back, the majority will probably be swayed by Robkelk and LT (they all hate my guts, so they'll want to see me suffer by losing the trope as is), and all the efforts made to keep this trope a float will be all for naught.

Might as well unblock that ban evader and congratulate her for this. She finally won.

LilyNadesico (talkcontribs)

Honestly, I think DocColress did NOT deserve the ban and should be reinstated. He was saying sensible things, and made valid points; Looney Toons really WAS being a judgmental, needlessly confrontational jerk who was getting overly emotional about the situation.

DocColress had already calmed himself at the time the block was put in effect, and he's been all about compromise when so many people here seem to be against him by principle.

Thank you.

GethN7 (talkcontribs)

Much appreciated you were civil in your dissent, but this is not our first altercation with the party in question. While their recent actions forced my hand, they've caused trouble before, and I had hoped they would have learned from it, but there is only so much that can be tolerated before I have to show that rules don't exist to be broken, and utterly vile abuse and contempt shown those who disagreed with him proved they had learned nothing from their prior censures.

On this topic, I'm afraid I'm not changing anything, but your objection is noted.

LilyNadesico (talkcontribs)

I'm sorry, but I did not see DocColress show "abuse and contempt" towards anyone. He was discussing things rationally but firmly, and yet I've seen many people here who are ready to villainize him.

This here? This is, in my opinion, proof that it was someone else to attack him first with an Ad Hominem.

I think DocColress was being reasonable here, honestly. He was even nice enough to stick up for me with Robkelk and Lulzkiller, before Looney Toones started pushing buttons...

GethN7 (talkcontribs)

True, two wrongs don;t maker a right, which is why I'm been pretty sympathetic to Doc, I shared many of their concerns, but this wound has become a bleeding sore and I had to do something I knew would upset people to cauterize it.

I'm not apologizing for it, and I hold nothing against Doc personally. However, I have a community I don't want torn apart either, and I could either sacrifice a wiki I worked to found over petty drama, or I could put an end to it.

It was a hard choice, but I did what had to be done. Discussion is final. If you still doubt me, feel free to go over all the prior discussions, blocks, and edit warring that took place, then if you still have questions, get back to me, but until then, I stand by my decisions, come what may.

LilyNadesico (talkcontribs)

I honestly have no idea how it would tear the wiki apart when he'd clearly been calming down at the time he was blocked...

RabidTanker (talkcontribs)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that pouring gasoline on a fire that you've caused to put it out isn't the most reasonable thing to do, at this point.

DocColress (talkcontribs)

Alright. In the time we have now, let's make our points known to other users and cross our fingers that this doesn't end in too drastic a resolution. I'd just like things to return to how they were going before that ban evader started screwing with things on her accounts...

DocColress (talkcontribs)

EDIT: Nevermind. This is irrelevant. This trope's dead to me as far as I'm concerned.

Regarding MCU!Mysterio

Aff280 (talkcontribs)

TvTropes has upvoted MCU!Mysterio as a CM. I'm wondering if you agree with the assertion that is being made to justify him qualifying since you noted that in your opinion, he did genuinely care for Peter and did regret to kill him.

Also as a side note, they've upvoted Ardos from the Pokemon Orre games too, through I'd disagree with this upvoting since I agree with you that he needed a third game to qualify and dosen't do enough in the time that was alloted to him.

DocColress (talkcontribs)

Ardos has been added here too, as he was already a YMMV example, so I figured why not?

On giving it second thought, Mysterio did have fondness and pity for Peter...but he didn't care about him enough to not just shrug it off and try to kill him or (alternatively) ruin his life without a shred of remorse, hesitation, or desire to find any alternative. He found it regrettable that he had to kill the boy, but he didn't find it not worth the effort to do so as long as his selfish plans were serviced by Peter and his friends getting wiped out. Kind of like Ego and how he shrugged off his love for Meredith Quill like it was nothing despite saying that it hurt him to give her that fatal brain tumor.

So yeah, Mysterio is a valid qualifier after all. (talkcontribs)

Could you look at Glen Gable's (ATT wiki) talkpage?

I found some sockpuppets there. (talkcontribs)

Okay, no need. I leave it to anyone else.

Professional Wrestling Complete Monsters

Summary by Mark D. Gordon

I don't really care.

Mark D. Gordon (talkcontribs)

Could this page get axed from here and on the other ATT?

We don't call real life people monsters.

Vandalism on the other All The Tropes

Summary last edited by Robkelk 14:01, 22 April 2019 11 months ago

Vandalism of Trope sites is always worth noting, so that we can be prepared for the same thing happening here. However, this particular Mod doesn't see how this is vandalism.

Mark D. Gordon (talkcontribs)

People keep removing Hidan of "Naruto" as an example of CM, while some tried to add Zira from "King of the Lions 2" as one. Could you restore the pages again and get them half-blocked because of the recurring edit-wars?

Also, the Villains Wiki got their own new rules, in which they could propose any villain and measure them with the criteria for qualifying and they're perhaps going to list any villain as "Pure Evil", who ended up as upvoted. Whenever 5-0, ?-0 after a week or any number three numbers higher after a week, the villain will be listed as one.

This also can result in people trying to bring them up to ATT without asking anyone else.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

How is this vandalism? People (well, confirmed users) are free to edit the Complete Monster pages in accordance with the wiki's "academic freedom" policy. Please note that a difference of opinion is not vandalism.

The pages are already semi-protected. (And I'm beginning to think that it was a mistake to semi-protect the Complete Monster pages, if it's leading to some people telling other people what they can and cannot post. ATT forked from TVT to get away from that.)

look below, please, and make a judgment

2 (talkcontribs)

The case isn't really solved. An admin even re-opened it, so you can say something about it. (talkcontribs)

I'd say the case is solved, as nothing happens.

A Disney character on the ATT-Wiki CM page

Summary by Mark D. Gordon

Not the case anymore. (talkcontribs)

Some users added a character on ATT a few times.

I have the TV-Tropes proposal of the character.

What is the Work?

Meet the Robinsons is a 2007 animated film about an orphan boy named Lewis, who is building a memory scanner as a science project and maybe attract a prospective adoptive parent. The machine fails and Lewis nearly gives up, but he meets a teenage boy named Wilbur Robinson (who is Lewis’s son from the future), who takes him to the future to pursue the forces who sabotaged and stole the memory scanner.

Who is the candidate and what do they do?

DOR-15 or Doris, is a bowler-hat-shaped-robot built by Lewis’s future self Cornelius to help people with everyday activities like brushing teeth and adjusting a tie. However, Doris took over the tester’s mind, using him to attack Cornelius and other scientists present. Cornelius shut her down (or so he thought) and put her amongst other failed experiments. Doris escapes before long and finds Michael “Goob” Yagoobian, Lewis’s orphanage roommate, bitter at Lewis for keeping him up at night, which caused him to miss a crucial catch at a baseball game. Goob and Doris steal one of Cornelius’s time machines and depart to the past to ruin the science fair demonstration. At the science fair, Doris, who acts as a Hypercompetent Sidekick, sabotages the machine, causing a few accidents before she and Goob steal the machine, intending to plagiarize Lewis’s work as Goob’s, but when they are separated, the demonstration goes poorly and Goob is tossed out. They depart to the future to pursue Lewis and Wilbur.

Once they find the Robinson House, Doris infiltrates the house and tries to kill Lewis with a Falling Chandelier of Doom, while Goob, left to his own devices, goes back in time and steals a dinosaur in an attempt to kill Lewis, which fails because Lewis gets into a spot where the dinosaur can’t reach. Lewis wanders off and is found by Doris and Goob, who bring him to the orphanage where Lewis and Goob grew up, where Goob reveals his and Doris’s origins. Wilbur and the Robinson’s robot butler Carl show up to rescue Lewis and grab the scanner, but Doris kills Carl by harpooning him with one of her appendages and takes the memory scanner, escaping to the past with Goob. Lewis can only watch helplessly as whatever changes Doris and Goob make wipe Wilbur from existence, creating a Bad Future in the process.

Lewis runs back to the house and finds the memory scanner, which plays the moment where Goob and Doris changed the past by claiming credit for the memory scanner. Doris used Goob to suggest mass production of copies of herself, and masterminded a mass enslavement of mankind. When Goob, who had only wanted to ruin Lewis’s life, protested, Doris had him killed. Doris, who is in the garage with the scanner, uses the Robinson family to attack Lewis, forcing him to flee the house (which is also a massive copy of Doris). As Lewis flies in the time machine, we get a glimpse of the Bad Future: the skies are choked with smog and hundreds of hats are being produced. EVERYONE is wearing a bowler hat, a slave to Doris’s will. Lewis escapes a swarm of smaller hats and departs to the past, where Goob is about to sign off on the patent. When he arrives, Lewis tells Goob what Doris will do to him and when Doris tries to shred him to pieces, he tells her “I am never going to invent you”, wiping her from existence.

Freudian Excuse or Mitigating Circumstances?

None on Freudian Excuse. Doris intended all along to conquer the world. There is a little bit where she could have caused a lot more damage at the school, but Goob only wanted to ruin Lewis’s life, so Doris played along for the time being. Being a robot? No. Doris does most of the thinking between her and Goob.


Sets it for the setting. Goob is a Harmless Villain who is useless without Doris.


What do you say?

Mark D. Gordon (talkcontribs)

The topic was solved short before there. Could you please remove the topic?

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

Just because TV Tropes resolves something doesn't mean we've resolved it. Let's keep this open until DocColress has had a chance to look it over.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

MOD: I said, "Let's keep this open until DocColress has had a chance to look it over." We had this discussion on your Talk page.

Whether something does or does not appear on TV Tropes does not determine whether it should or should not appear on All The Tropes, but it can serve as a suggestion. That's all. This is not TV Tropes. We make our own decisions here.

New Candidate from Dragons Series

5 (talkcontribs)

Hey DocColress I have just got back from seeing How To Train Your Dragon The Hidden World, which has to be one of the best films Dreamworks has ever made. So, with that in mind it is time to re-discuss Drago Bludvist...

Haha, just kidding :), our villain for evaluation today is not Drago, but the Big Bad of this film Grimmel The Grisly.

Who Is He: Grimmel The Grisly is SURPRISE!!! the big bad of the third and final installment of the franchise How To Train Your Dragon The Hidden World Grimmel is a ruthless and feared dragon hunter, who has a deep seated hatred for all dragonkind, and believes it is impossible for dragons and humans to coexist peacefully. As a result he wants to wipe out all dragons from existance. Unlike Drago Bludvist who captures and enslaves dragons, or Viggo Grimborn who want to commit Dragon genocide for profit, Grimmel kills them outright for nothing more than sheer sadistic pleasure. Grimmel therefore might just rival Drago for the most depraved antagonist in the series.

What Has He Done: Long before the events of the film, Grimmel as a young man came across a Night Fury during his travels. Instead of trying to befriend the lovable dragon, Grimmel slaughtered the dragon for sport and is both stated/strongly implied that Toothless (Hiccup's dragon) is the very last Night Fury remaining on earth. Fast forward to the present, the evil army known as "The Warlords" needing a new leader following the death of their former boss (HTTYD 2's big bad Drago Bludvist), have hired Grimmel as their leader to capture, hunt down and kill Toothless due to their inexperience at Dragon Hunting. He also employs six Deathgripper dragons who breathe acid like fire a henchmen, which he drugged into obeying by envenomating them. Dragons infused with Deathgripper Venom are resistant to even an Alpha Dragon's commands.

Grimmel eventually discovers Toothless location living on the Island of Berk, (which also happens to be home to both Hiccup and the Hooligan tribe, and all of their dragons). Grimmel plans to free a so called "Light Fury" while leaving a poison dart behind in order to activate a trap to capture Toothless, and use him as an Alpha Dragon. After his initial plot fails, Grimmel sneaks into Hiccup's house while he is reading his late fathers notes, and pours himself a cup of tea. All while naming himself as "The Night Fury Killer", and gleefully boasting about how he has exterminated every night fury except for Toothless. Hiccup threatens Grimmel by stating he will never give up Toothless, and signaling the Dragon Riders to come out and defend the pair. In response, Grimmel issues an ultimatium to have Toothless in his clutches by the next morning, or Grimmel's armada will destroy everything and everyone Hiccup loves or cares for. The evil dragon hunter then summons his six Deathgripper Dragons to burn Hiccup's house to the ground with acid fire before retreating. This prompts Hiccup and all of the Berkians to flee from their homeland in hopes of not being detected by Grimmel and the warlords.

Unfortunately for Hiccup, Grimmel reveals to his fellow warlords where Hiccup and the Berkians are headed. After some time, sensing Grimmel close by, Hiccup and the other riders invade Grimmel's base in order to capture him, they fall right into his ambush trap however and barely escape with their lives. It is here where Grimmel reveals how proud he is to have killed the first Night Fury he saw after encountering him, before sicking his drugged deathgrippers on the riders and forcing them to flee for their lives, with Ruffnut being captured in the process. After Hiccup and his girlfriend Astrid return from the Hidden World to New Berk, with the Light Fury following close behind. It is here, that Grimmel decides to capture both the Light Fury and Toothless. Using the released prisoner Ruffnut Thorston, Grimmel follows her back to new berk and quickly subdues and captures, both Toothless and the Light Fury. The other Dragons of New Berk having forseen this, try to save the pair but are quickly enslaved and caught after Grimmel forces Toothless to call the dragons to the Warlords by pointing a crossbow at the Light Fury. The dragons all submit and head to the warlords, prompting Grimmel to go back on his previous deal and keep all the dragons including Toothless and the Light Fury.

As the enslaved dragons are locked one by one in cages on the Warlords Ships, while Grimmel readies his crossbow to finish off both Toothless and the Light Fury. Hiccup and the other riders then storm in on Dragon Flightsuits, and begin to do battle with the Warlords, while freeing all of the enslaved dragons from Grimmel's clutches, much to the dragon hunters surprise. Grimmel however survives his platform being destroyed and puts a venom collar on the Light Fury, allowing him to gain complete control over the dragon and make an escape attempt. As Hiccup and Toothless are right on his tail, Grimmel starts to lose it and shoots a dart as Hiccup gets close, the dart hits Toothless instead causing him to plummet towards the ocean. Having jumped on the Light Fury, Hiccup frees her from the collar, and kicks Grimmel off the dragon. Grimmel then attempts to pull Hiccup down to the grave with him, barely hanging on to the latters prosthetic leg. Eventually, both Hiccup and Grimmel both fall off the Light Fury and plummet towards the ocean, after commanding the Light Fury to save Toothless, Hiccup separates himself from Grimmel by removing his fake leg as the pair continue their rapid descent, Toothless, who had been saved by the light fury, catches Hiccup at the last moment, while Grimmel falls to his death upon impact with the ocean.

Heinous Standard: He most surely is heinous by the Dragons series work,(despite the series in general being Darker and Edgier). Being the bid bad of the film, he sets the general heinous standard. A short rapsheet of his crimes include, global genocidal ambitions towards all dragons For The Evulz. (And is the main reason Toothless and the Light Fury are the only Night Furies left). Drugging his dragons into total compliance with Deathgripper venom, so that they are completely enslaved and controlled. (As well as capturing/enslaving the Berkians Dragons in a manner similar to Drago Bludvist from the previous film). Burning down Hiccup's house and part of berk causing the Hooligan tribe to flee their homeland. Issuing an ultimatium to destroy everything Hiccup loves just to obtain Toothless, and then going back on his deal and enslaving all the Berkian Dragons after he gets what he wants. Gladly embracing his past as someone who killed the first Night Fury he came across rather than befriending it. And finally trying to take Hiccup to the grave with him out of sheer spite.

Any Mitigating Factors: None, Grimmel is a Dragon Hunter, enslaver, serial killer and genocidal madman, who wants to kill off all dragons in the world simply due to petty hatred and sadistic pleasure. And he has no redeeming qualities/moments to speak to boot. And he is Faux Affably Evil as they come. He is also clearly self aware of the choices he is making without real insanity. Grimmel is a bloodthirsty sadist, who could be considered an evil foil to Hiccup, of what Hiccup could have become if he killed Toothless rather than befriending the dragon upon meeting him.

Freduian Excuse or Moral Agency: None to speak of here either. Whereas Drago might of had a freudian excuse, but went CM after surronding himself with the dragons he plotted revenge against to conquer the world. Grimmel has no real backstory considered even the least bit tragic.

Conclusion: I would leave the final call to both you guys/TV Tropes but if I had to put my thumb down I would say keep, thoughts???

DocColress (talkcontribs)

I'd say he's an easy keeper. Going to wait for his discussion on TV Tropes, though, but even if he's not voted up there, he'll pass the trope as defined here.

Miked0920 (talkcontribs)

Update 2 weeks later: Grimmel The Grisly write-up coming later this week. Even though he got downvoted on TV Tropes, we still think he counts here. While Grimmel might not have all the resources that Drago had at his disposal, he still manages to be evil and depraved enough to count. The whole Dragon Genocide business, Feeding baby dragons to your own DeathGripper Slaves, enslaving dragons into total compliance by envenomating them, burning down Hiccup's House while ultimately faking an ultimatium, etc is just too far over the heinous line on a smaller scale. My draft might not be perfect, so I guess I'll write it up either on here or the Dreamworks Subpage.

DocColress (talkcontribs)

It seemed more like a hung jury on TV Tropes rather than a straight up unanimous downvote. But I do agree that he qualifies by this Wiki's criteria. His refusal to do even worse than he seems able to do isn't based in personal standards, but on his own form of Pragmatic Villainy. Dragon was Stupid Evil, meaning not choosing to not do worse in any of his actions was practically second nature to him - Grimmel is Smart Evil, able to determine what's just effective enough to get him what he wants, even when there are crueler options he could go with but feels he needn't. Both villains operate under different resources, different motivations and end goals, and different approaches to villainy, but they're both completely horrible for who they are and what they have to work with.

Miked0920 (talkcontribs)

Exactly, anyhow Grimmel write up is installed on the Dreamworks page. Right now it is seemingly a rough draft. Feel free to edit parts, that you feel may need revising, thanks.