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.
I'm pretty sure on pages like that, you aren't allowed to edit someone else's entry.
God, that breaks my heart.
Discord: Waido X 255#1372 If you cant contact me on TV Tropes do it here.
Lord Kat has also sexually harassed people so guh to this
Might want to PM the entry's owner, as he'd likely not want to be associate with that anymore.
EDIT: You know, I looked at the main page and there's nothing about changing someone else's gush. I assumed like DMOS that entries had to be tagged but... honestly, I don't see anything in the rules against cutting out that (now unequivocally false) statement.
Edited by Larkmarn Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Yeesh talk about Funny Aneurism Moment. Maybe wait for a Mod to say what you should do.
"That's right mortal. By channeling my divine rage into power, I have forged a new instrument in which to destroy you."
The issue with this is that this is an example of Harsher in Hindsight. The entry isn't wrong, it was written a while ago. Unless the entry is factually wrong, which to be fair it wasn't at the time, then maybe let the user know but don't remove it.
Edited by keyblade333 Muramasa got.
Yeah...
After finding out he got booted for several accusations of sexual misconduct that included one straight-up sexual assault of a sleeping girl and was doing this with a wife at home all the entities scattered about the wiki about him basically being Internet Mr Rogers really are uncomfortable and Harsher in Hindsight.
His reputation as a saint was so prolific I really think we need a clean-up in general to quietly remove gushing about him and make mentions more neutral out of respect for his victims.
Edit: I also second Aegis. I worshipped TGWTG as a teenager and was one of those people that considered the idea of working with them a dream job so seeing so many of them fall over the last few years really has been a Broken Pedestal moment for me. It's heartbreaking.
Edited by shoboni
Finding the original user is... tricky. The history for the page shows that all the entries were moved from the Web Original page to the New Media page in 2012, just before the Web Original page was cut. The Web Archive shows the entry was added around August 2011, but no one bothered to archive the page history. So I'm pretty sure the identity of the Troper who added that is lost to history.
I know that Repair Dont Respond is the rule, but I think this might be an instance where "responding" is the better option. Keep the entry but add a subbullet or footnote explaining the context.
It was removed but added back.
Well, that's an edit war, unless he went to discussion.
And also he's technically wrong... since these are unsigned and there's no rule about it one way or the other, it's perfectly legal to remove someone else's gush.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
I'd say just PM the person who wrote that.
Keet cleanup
This part in Particular makes me feel physically ill.
YOU CANT CONDEMN A RAPIST! ALSO HE WAS A NICE GUY AND NOBODY WAS SUPPOSED TO KNOW!
Edited by AegisP Discord: Waido X 255#1372 If you cant contact me on TV Tropes do it here.
Sent a PM. Hopefully he'll take it to discussion.
... but yeah. That's... worrisome language. There's a pretty big gap between "condemning a sexual deviant for one aspect of his life" and "praising and whitewashing a sexual predator."
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Also that edit reason was full of typos and stuff!
Discord: Waido X 255#1372 If you cant contact me on TV Tropes do it here.
People can do both good things and bad things. Even Mister Rogers and Hitler weren't purely good/evil.
This is yet another case of being technically right, but an asshole about it so people are less likely to take your side. (Not right about the "can't delete someone else's gushing" part, but the "JewWario wasn't a black hole of evil" part.)
Again, there's somewhere in between "sexual predator" and "sweetest, most genuine person."
Such as, say, not mentioning him. The edit that was reverted didn't say anything mean about Jew Wario, it simply removed the gushing about him.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
I honestly think it should be a rule that you can't delete someone else's gushing, because we don't want people deleting gushing about shows or characters just because they don't like them. Can't you just ignore a Sugar Wiki entry?
Keet cleanup
I'm inclined to do to Gushing About Shows You Like what we did to Troper Tales. There's no real reason to have it.
Edited by RallyBot2
I think we should just take a third choice and not gush about actual real life people.
Discord: Waido X 255#1372 If you cant contact me on TV Tropes do it here.
If gushing is not already No Rel Life Examples Please, it should be.
RJD,
There's a point where lines have to be drawn and gushing about a real-life rapist and how great they are a person is extremely disrespectful to their victim.
I vote against gushing real life people. It is better to not do that.
To win, you need to adapt, and to adapt, you need to be able to laugh away all the restraints. Everything holding you back.
Disagree.
Doing that would create to much of a grey area to deal with on mediums like web video.
Then Gushing should be cut instead.
Discord: Waido X 255#1372 If you cant contact me on TV Tropes do it here.
Gushing should be about works and not people. I would be fine with removing anything that talks about the creators in person, like the entry in question, because new things can always come up about them. So entries focusing on the quality of their reviews or performance should be fine, whatever other affairs might be circulating around them.
Though I would like to also remove any gushing that bashes "defensive fans" on the side.
Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.
I didn't realize how old this query was; it was deleted over a year ago and bobg just added it back with a bizarre edit reason, so maybe it should stay gone after all. I'm strongly against the idea of cutting Gush/ pages altogether, but I'm open to the idea of removing gushing about real-life creators, though that would need a wiki talk discussion.
Keet cleanup
Reverted to remove the reversion and noted the ATT in the edit reason.
The broader discussion about the Gushing for real life people should be taken to the forums.
Well, it is true that he groomed a woman. But he did also talk people out of suicide. This is one example
.
I heard that he helped others too. He was known to have done many good things, which is why everyone praised him and mourned for him after his suicide. People said he helped so many. He did turn out to be a sexual groomer, but my mom said that you shouldn't have all your good deeds in life ignored and be judged solely because of the bad things you did. I agree. It's not fair to disregard all the good things a person did just because of the bad things. All people deserve to be known for whatever good things they did, regardless of the bad things. It's not fair to completely disregard everything good they did and remove any mention of those things and fill everything to the brim with only the bad things. Also, he WAS incredibly kind to his fans like the entry pointed out. That was not untrue. The thing about sexual grooming only came out years later, so at the time, that entry was entirely right. It's not fair to remove statements made by a person who had an encounter with him where they were talking about his good side when that was based on their own personal experience. How would you feel if you were related to someone who got enough media attention that they warranted being mentioned on this wiki (say they were a celebrity), so you went and added gushing about them on the site, and later, after their dark side was revealed, people came along and deleted the positive things you wrote about your relative?
I would also like to note that the woman that he sexually groomed did in fact say that she did not want it made public, and she admitted that what he did to her was technically not illegal. She herself said she didn't want to bash him because of it, and when the details got leaked anyway, people started running around removing tribute videos and spreading lies that he was a pedophile and a child molester. His victim was of legal age so that is a lie.
Edited by bobg jjj
Dude, you're really going hard defending a sexual predator that groomed a barely legal girl with emotional issues (the really issue more than the ages here, she allegedly had developmental issues that made her vulnerable) culminating in attempted rape while in his 40s and married.
This is not a good look.
Edited by CryptidProductions
I'm just saying that I don't think it's fair to delete something based off of a personal experience, and using her as a justification isn't the best argument since she herself wanted it to not go public, so you can't exactly say you are doing it on her behalf. If anything, you should message the OP and ask them how they feel about their old entry given the developments. They could decide if they wanted it removed or not. It's only fair.
Yes, he did bad things, but I don't think that warrants removing mentions of personal experiences by others without first consulting them. Why don't we message them now?
jjj
Whoever wrote it, wrote it years ago. So, er, yeah, not very likely they'd have stuck around this long to even care about whether or not their gush gets deleted.
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
When someone posts something that now falls afoul of the rules or of good taste in general it's not up to them whether it stays.
It's the decision of the staff and community and there seems to be agreement here it would be in bad taste to leave blatant gushing about his personal character up knowing now that he was a predator and abuser.
Especially in these extreme circumstances where he was putting up a front of being a saint and fooling everyone into treating him like one to cover for it.
Edited by CryptidProductions
If the original editor comes back and wants to argue for its inclusion, then they can take it up. The consensus is here and now. The gushing is no longer appropriate.
Query locked.
On Gush.New Media, there's an entry that gushes about all the contributors on Channel Awesome, obviously made years before the #ChangeTheChannel movement. I don't have a problem with most of this, except there's a sentence about Justin that's wince-inducing in hindsight considering recent revelations about him. I'm wondering if I can have permission to remove it, as while it is a part of the Sugar Wiki, it can definitely be taken the wrong way. Here's the entry with the parts I want to edit out in bold.