Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
Seconding. Was just about to bring that up.
Mary Sue is Flame Bait, so those particular deletions were probably fine (especially since TFA is the reason it became Flame Bait in the first place). The rest is definitely troubling.
Edited by Karxrida If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?
Yeah, this guy sounds like trouble. Though a nitpick:
"(especially since TFA is the reason it became Flame Bait in the first place)"
I'm pretty sure that it was Flame Bait way before that. There have been many discussions on the forums about how the Mary Sue "tropes" are nothing but excuses for complaining.
It is likely that the Force Awakens that the spark that ignited the powder keg that was Mary Sue as Flame Bait
On-topic: The Milo Yianopolus/Ghostbusters one definitely raises some red flags for me too. I feel like the mods needs to have a talk with Clint about this
Edited by MorningStar1337
Thanks for the feedback. Re the Mary Sue related edits, it's possible that what he deleted was Flame Bait (I don't think so necessarily though), but it's not cool to add Weasel Words about there being good arguments either way about Rey being a Mary Sue because she isn't- and as noted, people's insistence that she was is actually why that trope became Flame Bait.
I don't see how 'actually did a useful edit' cancels out 'strong indications of agenda issues'.
Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry Pratchett
^If his agenda is removing things that could develop into flame wars I doubt you will see many mods up in arms over it.
However, it might be worth mentioning that the username (intentionally or not) comes across (at least to me) as an offensive "The Problem with Pen Island" joke if you were to write it in all caps.
Edited by Daefaroth This signature says something else when you aren't looking at it.
From the OP, it seems that he did a lot more than just removing potential flamebait. It does sound like agenda-based editing.
^^I was referring to the potential MRA agenda the first poster appears to have observed.
Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry Pratchett
Hmm... definitely skirting the line considering he's sticking to the rules for the most part. I don't see disciplinary action as being needed quite yet, but someone should bring the agenda thing up to him directly. If he doesn't explode right then he should probably be fine.
Oh, the thread? Don't worry, it's just dead.
I noticed Clint Rider because he occasionally makes edits to the Critical Role pages, which I watch because they regularly attract bad entries. His first edits to the YMMV page were to restore a contentious (non-MRA related) Base Breaker entry without comment (which I changed my mind about and left on), and though I was slightly wary because of that, his name, and the fact that it was a bit strange that a brand-new editor would dig through the history to restore an entry, I didn't think much about it.
However, seeing the MRA stuff mentioned here reminded me of another MRA-type who used to make edits to the Critical Role page and argued for the same Base-Breaking Character entry - GoneRampant
.
Along with Critical Role, the accounts share edits on Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Uncharted, Mass Effect: Andromeda, and several Batman pages. I also found out that the Gone Rampant account was suspended, meaning that Clint Rider is breaking rules by trying to get around the ban.
Edited by supergod For we shall slay evil with logic...
Impressive catch. Clint Rider is Gone Rampant ban evading. Zorched them.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Good catch. Should we revert the TFA page?
@supergod: That is impressive detective work.
Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry Pratchett
I noticed on The Force Awakens that Clint Rider deleted a bunch of articles/commentary criticizing the identification of Rey as a Mary Sue as well as added some equivocating language that "In general, there are valid argument that can be made either way, but are likely to still attract criticism."
In general, he basically deleted everything criticizing criticism of he movie, especially if directed against MRA types. And changed some entries to be more critical toward the movie.
His edit reason is "What "controversy?" Glorified muckrakers making clickbait headlines aside (And the Fury Road boycott never happened, the only evidence of its existence was said muckrakers who are known for lying), Furiosa got next to no criticism. Also, I don't see the point of actually including Waid and Del Toro's comments as their own thing- the point is already made enough as is."
Edit- Incidentally, was looking at some of their recent edits and while the example itself probably violated The Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgement, on Ghostbusters (2016), there was an entry about how the attacks on Leslie Jones by Milo Icantspellhislastname and his followers finally got him kicked off of twitter, he deleted the entry and gave this edit reason: "Debatable, given how Leslie Jones has a lot of skeletons in her own closet, especially in relation to doing the exact same things Milo did. If you wanna say stuff like that, then politely take it to your tumblr."
So yeah, my MRA alarm is going off.
Edited by Hodor2