It's already under review. I don't know if we'll get an answer that can be posted here, but we'll try to keep you informed.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Again, thank you for the action.
I have work to do so I'll be unable to monitor this thread but it's comforting to know that something is at least being done. Though, at the risk of being glib, it is concerning that none of the ground-level moderation have any contact with the social media wing of the site staff. It strikes me as odd.
Agnes Tachyon (Japanese : アグネスタキオン, April 13, 1998 - June 22, 2009) was an undefeated Japanese Thoroughbred racehorse and aModerators are responsible for this site and this site only. We don't operate or manage any of the other parts of the TV Tropes enterprise. We're the people you see the most because the staff generally lets us keep things in order while they work behind the scenes. They do all the other stuff.
Edited by Fighteer on Sep 9th 2019 at 10:52:53 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Over in the Unreleased Work Page Cleanup Thread
, HighCrate called for mods to discipline number9robotic for knowingly violating policy on Death Stranding, and Berrenta responded.
I don't believe robotic did anything wrong. When HighCrate first brought up policy problems, robotic did go back and correct them once he understood the issue (full disclosure: albeit with some understandable frustration in the thread, and nombretomado did give him a warning about being confrontational). There is no indication that HighCrate contacted him about further problems before reporting him. From my perspective, robotic made good-faith efforts to correct the problem and does not deserve mod attention.
In turn, I do think HighCrate may need looking at. Siccing mods on robotic was a low point, but he's long been a thorn in the side of several tropers when it comes to unreleased work pages. He has little trust that any material like trailers can reflect the work accurately, and has voiced in the Policy Feedback thread
that he doesn't think anyone who hasn't seen the final product is truly qualified to add examples. He's quick to denounce anyone who doesn't work to his standards and to comment out "speculative" examples, but I've seen little effort made to actually correct problematic entries. I can't say he's done anything strictly wrong, but his overzealousness has ruffled a lot of feathers in the process and I believe it's to the detriment of the wiki.
The fact they edit warred is absolutely wrong. We had policy discussion underway, and it was already going in favor of changing back the entry to what robotic wanted. Though possibly some small changes, but it was hardly on HC's side to begin with. The user instead of letting us discuss it, took it upon themselves to do exactly what they want. We would've likely fixed the draconian issue very quickly, within maybe one more day at least at this point. It's hard to do that when the user refuses to cooperate at all and fight tooth and nail at every turn. I don't agree with HC's implementation of the policy at all(and we were discussing that), but they were very polite and properly reported them. Until the rule is changed(which was very likely), going out of your way to not follow it is "doing something wrong".
There is an issue, but the issue isn't HC properly reporting the user's poor behavior. That was justified.
Shadow?I believe that's a misinterpretation of events. robotic added examples to the Death Stranding page that were commented out here
by HighCrate. robotic then took it to discussion, and upon learning that the problem was the lack of written citations, uncommented the examples and added citations to them
referring to the thread in their edit reason. HighCrate disputed this in the Unreleased Clean-up page, but, according to robotic's suspension post
, HighCrate made no actual effort to alert robotic that there was still an issue with his edits. No messages, no forum ping, nothing. And he didn't have reason to check the Unreleased Clean-up thread for any issues as he was redirected to the Unreleased Feedback thread beforehand. robotic then added brand new edits
to the Death Stranding page- emphasis on new, this was not re-adding old examples at all- which is when HighCrate sicced the mods on him.
IMO, the fault is on HighCrate for not alerting robotic to continuing (perceived) issues with his edits, never mind how debatable it is that such edits are even an issue at all.
they/them || "Forgive me, regent of queer amphibians" - Lt.BGobSo they took the old entries and basically added them back while they were still under discussion. Even if not an edit war we clearly were not ready to add them back as there was still an issue.
He absolutely had every reason to keep an eye on the threads. We never gave a clear answer on what to do. They jumped the gun. They also have been overly confrontational for no good reason and taking it very personally. There's no questioning how rude they were as is about this whole situation.
My bad on the Edit War, but it really doesn't change that they did do something wrong to begin with. You don't add back contested entries without discussion. They barely discussed it, then decided only their interpretation counts. That's absolutely still a problem. HC pinging them would've been good too, but robotic was still doing something wrong as is.
HC is hardly one to blame for following policy and expecting people to actually follow the overall site rules. We've already discussed that the way they are enforcing it is a problem. That doesn't excuse anyone breaking other rules because they disagree with HC as is. Things aren't black and white here.
Shadow?robotic has stated they are not a regular forum-goer, yet their actions are still mostly in line with how an edit war should be handled. When the edits were contested by HighCrate, robotic took it to discussion, where they hashed it out (admittedly in a way that was a little overconfrontational) and made it clear that the problem was the lack of written citation. robotic was then referred over to the Unreleased Feedback page, where they discussed it a little further before stating
that they were going to re-add the entries with the written citations. No-one, including the mod that posted right after him, made any effort to stop his edit, so how was he supposed to know that what he did was incorrect when he followed the basic procedure we have written down for an Edit War (take to discussion, hash it out, then re-add the fixed entries)? Was what he did even incorrect?
Moreover, the edit war was not what HighCrate reported him for. Quoting them:
He is directly and knowingly violating policy. Hollering the mods.
First off, no citations other than weblinks is a lie; the entries
in question explicitly refer to the source in text. It is also incorrect in stating that robotic was told by multiple people that his edits 'explicitly referring to the final game' were unacceptable; HighCrate was the only one saying that, with multiple
tropers
making
it
clear (including myself)
that they disagreed with HC's overly strict view on it.
And I'll re-iterate again that HC made no attempt to let robotic know that there was an issue with the new entries that had been brought up in a thread he had already been directed away from. No message was sent and no forum notifier was made to let robotic know that anything was wrong.
TL;DR robotic was given every reason to believe that his actions were not wrong, and this entire thing feels like it's punishing a troper's good faith efforts while defending the overly-strict policing that led to this being an issue in the first place.
Edited by whizzerd on Sep 19th 2019 at 2:39:03 PM
they/them || "Forgive me, regent of queer amphibians" - Lt.BGobThat's not the full story either. Robotic was under some impression that we "agreed to change the entries back" in the Policy Discussion thread. That was never the case. They absolutely jumped the gun. Keep in mind the user has clearly shown a lack of patience, which is why it has been difficult to work with them. We can't get stuff done if people don't cooperate. However, I believe it was honestly also a misunderstanding. As noted, they aren't a regular forum user. So it's easy to misread the situation to begin with.
Basically, it's not some black and white situation here. It's also not fair to throw all the blame on HC when he didn't break any rules. He did mistakenly report something, and that's something to discuss too. But they both made errors. So again, it's not black and white whatsoever.
Also, my bad on the edit war bit. I misread what happened earlier(happens to many).
Anyway, I made a holler to the Edit Banned thread about this information to help put in more context of the situation. That should help clear it up. Thank you guys for bringing up some stuff I didn't see. I partially misread some of it too.
Edited by Irene on Sep 19th 2019 at 12:47:32 PM
Shadow?I don't think HC is really guilty of anything other than being impatient and strict when it comes to enforcing the new rule. It seems more to me that the rule itself is causing problems by being too...easy to misinterpret. Everyone has a different idea of where the line is, what is and isn't acceptable, and both were just trying to follow the rules in this instance. Robotic jumped the gun; HC was too impatient when calling for action, rather than trying to discuss with them. Both are at fault, though I do think Robotic's actual edits were fine.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallI'm going to page ~Berrenta for her thoughts, as the acting mod in number9robotic's suspension.
For my two cents, I think the assessment of both tropers acting in good faith (despite number9robotic getting warned for being confrontational) is accurate, as well as the general thoughts of intervention being needed on "what is the line" for unreleased works clean-up.
After a bit of discussion with the staff:
We were told that your call to us regarding robotic was a bit rushed. Try to exercise a bit more patience.
Also, we're not a fan of your strictness regarding policy enforcement. For everyone's sake, we'd ask you to knock it off. Thank you.
While some of number9robotic's edits did have token citations, their multi-bullet Product Placement entry did not. They also restored Genre-Busting with no alteration whatsoever despite the fact that Word of God is neither citation nor context having been specifically brought to their attention.
At the time I made that report to the moderators, he was making several edits in quick succession, all of which were connected to a matter still under active discussion on the cleanup thread.
Reverting his edits myself would have been an Edit War, which would obviously have been unacceptable, and considering number9robotic's hostile attitude up until that point, would almost certainly have escalated the situation. That was an outcome that I wished to avoid.
I had already sent him notifiers and brought his attention to the cleanup thread, where he responded with constant hostility before peacing out and making a barrage of edits that ignored the feedback he had gotten there, so that wasn't getting the desired result either.
To be frank, I wasn't sure what the best way to handle the situation was, which was precisely why I alerted the moderators. I didn't request any particular action from them, just alerted them to a troubling situation and trusted them to handle it as they felt proper.
If that was the wrong way for me to handle it, what would a better way have been?
Edited by HighCrate on Sep 19th 2019 at 11:29:03 AM
Start a discussion with them, maybe? If they continued being confrontational in the thread, a mod would've stepped in, but this way you could've attempted to help them figure out what was wrong with their edits— rather than just get impatient.
The thing is, a lot of us seem to agree that their edits were fine- or at least, done in good faith with a genuine attempt to follow the rules. Would they have gotten angry if you confronted them again? Yes, possibly, but the report in the thread was also very one-sided. We get that you think their edits were still poor, but this is another case where the consensus seems to disagree with you. If you'd opened another discussion, or at least made the effort, this probably could've been sorted out.
Look, HC. We know you're just trying to enforce the rules, and that robot did jump the gun in assuming their edits were correct. But as far as I can tell, you are the only person to still contest the edits themselves, not their conduct. The issue is that you both interpreted the rule differently, and so while they made edits they thought would be good, you disagreed. And that's fine, but you also need to explain how their edits were actually wrong- how the citations were just a "token", how they were wrong with most of the edits they made.
And that's a discussion that should probably be had on the policy thread. All I'm trying to say is that if you think their edits were problematic, please explain why, rather than just jump to insisting there's a problem before trying to correct said problem in discussion. And, if after you explain, the consensus still disagrees, please, please, consider the possibility that you're just being too strict. That's all I ask.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall

Hello. I'll keep this short by simply linking the thread with the original complaint
. To make a long story short, I want to know who is using the TVT Twitter account to post alt-right comics and what, if anything, can be done about it.
I was advised to bring this up here.
Agnes Tachyon (Japanese : アグネスタキオン, April 13, 1998 - June 22, 2009) was an undefeated Japanese Thoroughbred racehorse and a