TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Ask The Tropers

Go To

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.

Ask the Tropers:

Trope Related Question:

Make Private (For security bugs or stuff only for moderators)

Zarina Since: Aug, 2014
2021-09-15 07:08:39

Giving that person's edit history a browse, it looks like they are generally adding context and making wording tweaks for clarification. I don't see anything objectionable at least in the most recent ones, including the one that you linked. Improving examples by making them clearer and more descriptive isn't rude to the original writer, and in fact it helps ensure that the trope example will stay on the page instead of being commented out or deleted for lack of context.

Do you have specific examples of removing tropes from character pages? There are quite a few tropes that don't apply on character pages and should be put on the main page because they aren't specifically character tropes, for example.

perkeez Since: Aug, 2018
2021-09-15 15:29:52

He does this all the time, and I wish something was done about it, but annoyingly most people are on his side. I genuinely think he does this to exert control over any page he edits, but the mods turn a blind eye to it. He hardly ever adds anything new to this wiki, which is a much more significant contribution.

Examples of unnecessary editing (there are many more than these): https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.Sizeshifter#edit30359685 https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=YMMV.Luca#edit30663785 https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Characters.Luca#edit30667207 https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Characters.Luca#edit30655686

Edited by perkeez Just trying to improve any page that needs it.
Eiryu Since: Dec, 2013
2021-09-15 15:42:54

A lot of it seems like fixing word cruft to me.

Synchronicity MOD (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
2021-09-15 15:52:36

Right. We don't like phrases like "Man, where do we start?", so deletions like that are warranted — see our article on Word Cruft.

The Luca ones seem like clarifying, anyway. "Alberto was living completely alone on his island" is slightly better context for Friendless Background than "had no one to talk to for at least a year".

laserviking42 Since: Oct, 2015
2021-09-15 16:07:45

You need to understand that This Is a Wiki, and as such nothing that any one of us writes actually belongs to us. People will come along later to edit, modify, expand or even delete our entries, that's just the nature of a wiki.

I didn't choose the troping life, the troping life chose me
DivineFlame100 Since: Mar, 2014
2021-09-15 16:22:55

Right. We don't own the examples we write. The Wiki will keep a record of our contributions on our history pages, but that doesn't mean we have exclusive rights to those examples. I very much appreciate people expanding on or doing minor touch-ups on the examples I write.

Besides, if it did came to the point that we own every example we wrote, I imagine Edit Wars would be a lot more common and out of control.

WarJay77 (Troper Knight)
2021-09-15 16:33:13

^ It'd make cleanup downright impossible, if we couldn't alter or cut someone else's contribution.

Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall
perkeez Since: Aug, 2018
2021-09-15 17:41:09

Sorry Rasmus Sabel, I tried. There have been several others who have had a problem with rva in the past though.

Just trying to improve any page that needs it.
annette12 Since: May, 2013
2021-09-15 17:55:38

To me, the problem is not not that he rewrites examples, it's the fact that he keeps deleting other tropers's entries if he doesn't think they are 100% correct. I know other users (including me) often fix mistakes and delete questionable examples, but his standards are way too strict and this may be a turnoff for many well-intentioned users. In the Luca character page, he deleted more than 60 examples only in the last two months.

He's often right but not always. A few times I've tried to send him private messages about a correct example he deleted but he never answered

WarJay77 (Troper Knight)
2021-09-15 18:23:35

If you think valid examples are being deleted, why not take it to discussion, on the discussion pages, ATT, or even the forums? Not necessarily discussion with Rva themselves, but with other tropers who might have insight.

...Also, Perkeez, this is why I said you and Rva "keep going at it". It's also why I keep asking you to make your own thread instead of jumping on other people's. I also want to point out that altering edits is just as much of a contribution as adding edits is- they're equally important. Bad examples can make people stop reading us.

Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall
perkeez Since: Aug, 2018
2021-09-15 19:34:58

^^ you've hit the nail on the head.

^ we haven't been "at it" for a while; we keep out of each other's way. Why would I have contact with someone that has been mean to be?

Edited by perkeez Just trying to improve any page that needs it.
WarJay77 (Troper Knight)
2021-09-15 19:39:19

By "at it", I mean you both seem to be holding grudges against each other and bring it up a lot. Especially because in this thread and the last one you seem to be going in with the express goal of getting Rva suspended or punished.

Plus, it worries me that you keep ignoring my suggestion to just make a proper ATT thread with your own concerns and evidences. I've suggested it on the last thread too and you ignored me there as well. Why?

Edited by WarJay77 Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall
crazysamaritan MOD Since: Apr, 2010
2021-09-15 19:41:15

it's the fact that he keeps deleting other tropers's entries if he doesn't think they are 100% correct.
his standards are way too strict and this may be a turnoff for many well-intentioned users.
Alright, this could be actionable. We don't want examples being deleted for being too crufty/broad when they could be made specific instead, or deleted because of being unclear instead of adding context to make the example clear. However, so far the "problems" have essentially been "I don't like how they're editing the wiki."

In the Luca character page, he deleted more than 60 examples only in the last two months.
Checking the edits where they deleted lines....
  • Removal of Felony Misdemeanor — not actually a removal, they moved the example to the main work page due to this not being a characterization trope. Clearly the correct action.
  • Removal of spoiler image — seems more like an editing problem here and if you can fix the code then you could re-add it without any problem.
  • Removal of FreudianExcuse — the example isn't entirely clear, but I think this is about the character Alberto. If Alberto is a villain then the example can be restored because the FE is a trope designed to add depth to a villain, not to explain everyone's vices. Conditionally the correct action.
  • Removal of Moment of Weakness — the example had some grammar problems, but "for several seasons" is at odds with "moment" and rva's point is that they should be acting "contrary" to their normal actions and this is in keeping with their behaviour in the movie. Correct action, assuming there is nothing else to the context.
Glancing at the other removals, they follow in the same vein (from the perspective of someone who hasn't seen the movie). A detailed reason being given for each deletion is exactly what is expected of editors. You mention that they don't respond to Private Messages, but as WJ77 says, you're also free to bring up those examples to the Discussion subpage and find consensus with other editors.
The idea that "well-intentioned" absolves you of the need to do things right is frankly odd. I've never seen an ethical system that advocates "intent" over "consequence", even in deontological systems (I lean towards Kant, myself). None of them claim that if another person wants to be morally good, then you shouldn't correct their mistakes. Everyone will be wrong at some point, and we have structures to fix those mistakes. If there is evidence that rva98014 refuses to obey consensus, then there is a problem which the moderation can step in and fix. But two editors having a mutual disagreement is a normal event and the rules say to side-step it by appealing to a larger group of editors to establish a consensus of opinion.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.
laserviking42 Since: Oct, 2015
2021-09-15 19:43:43

perkeez, this is the second ATT thread I've seen you hijack in order to continue your vendetta against this troper. That is what is meant by "going at it". You obviously have issues with them, yet you refuse to actually gather evidence and start a separate query. Instead you continue with this sniping from the sidelines, muttering vague accusations that you refuse to back up with anything concrete. Yet you insist that "something be done" about these vague complaints you absolutely refuse to specify.

Many people have told you this, and I'll tell you again: Make your own report. Stop hijacking and derailing other people's threads to continue this vendetta.

Gather the evidence and make your own report

I didn't choose the troping life, the troping life chose me
perkeez Since: Aug, 2018
2021-09-15 20:05:41

I was just providing support for the original poster of this thread. I will monitor rva's edits in the future and start a thread if need be. A mod should tell him to tone it down though. No need to be so harsh about it.

Edited by perkeez Just trying to improve any page that needs it.
magnumtropus Since: Aug, 2020
2021-09-15 20:18:37

Didn't perkeez and rva already get suspended once due to an Edit War?

perkeez Since: Aug, 2018
2021-09-15 20:22:51

I did not willingly step into an edit war, and I do not ever intend to. Let's lock this.

Edited by perkeez Just trying to improve any page that needs it.
Arctimon (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
2021-09-15 20:28:41

Can we please lock this? A mod has already spoken, and people have been instructed what to do in case further action is required. Keeping this open is only going to create more headaches.

RasmusSabel Since: Mar, 2017
2021-09-16 06:47:02

maybe you are missing my point, i think many of rva98014 edits are good and correct but i think the problem is he does not explain why he tweaks wording. if he think the other troper was unclear or lacks context then it is okay that he tweaks the wording but than he should write why he tweaks the wording. otherwise it just seems like he thinks he is the only one who can phrase a example correctly which is kinda rude against other people who spent much time writing an example.

he is good at explaining why he removes examples but he never explains why he tweaks wording

Edited by RasmusSabel
MichaelKatsuro Since: Apr, 2011
2021-09-16 08:00:09

I will monitor rva's edits in the future and start a thread if need be.
You clearly already believe there's need. I recommend you get it over with and start that thread.

RoseAndHeather (Edited uphill both ways)
2021-09-16 08:10:39

Seriously, can we lock this now?

I serve at the pleasure of President Pritchart.
AmourLeFou Since: Apr, 2021
2021-09-16 08:45:15

I think he should at least get a 3-day ban.

Check out my forum game: Rate the above YMMV.
LadyErinNY Since: Sep, 2014
2021-09-16 09:04:02

For what? Trying to improve entries, deleting entries that are wrong?

Additionally it is not your place to say a troper deserves a ban, three day or otherwise. It is the mods' decision.

Edited by LadyErinNY
Eiryu Since: Dec, 2013
2021-09-16 09:07:22

^^ Why? Because some people are annoyed with him? He didn’t do anything wrong, per Mod.

Zuxtron (On A Trope Odyssey)
2021-09-16 09:20:19

Plus, TV Tropes doesn't usually do 3-day bans. Most bans don't have a set duration, they last however long it takes for the troper to understand what they did wrong.

Synchronicity MOD (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
2021-09-16 09:21:26

Also...don't mini-mod. It's not our place to say who should get banned or not.

mightymewtron Since: Oct, 2012
2021-09-16 09:26:39

Even the mod didn’t definitively declare anything yet, right or wrong. Seems we need more info instead of vague "they delete stuff I added." Do they use edit reasons? Maybe that's an issue.

v Ah. Then there doesn't seem to be a problem. People are allowed to reword things to be clearer.

Edited by mightymewtron I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
LadyErinNY Since: Sep, 2014
2021-09-16 10:04:20

He does use edit reasons. The objection seems to be that they do a lot of deleting and rewording. However, he always gives an edit reason.

HeavyMetalHermitCrab Since: Sep, 2018
2021-09-16 10:31:24

I remember in the previous thread, perkeez saying something to the effect of "I'm sure you can find something if you look long enough."

That, to me, doesn't say "this person is causing a problem", it says "I just want this person to get in trouble." Especially when, in the course of more than one thread, no one has yet produced an actual example of wrongdoing. As I said before, there's a big difference between "this person is breaking the rules" and "I don't like what this person is doing."

As of right now, the latter is all I've seen. It's neither reasonable nor fair to ban somebody for doing exactly what the wiki asks its users to do.

And no, I'm not going to scan rva's entire edit history in an attempt to find a mistake. The burden of proof falls on the accuser, and if the people complaining are too lazy to find proof (or just don't have any), then there's really nothing to discuss.

iamconstantine Since: Aug, 2014
2021-09-16 11:20:59

I've commented in other threads before about being a bit grudge-y to rva but after a lot of thinking and communicating with them, they're really not doing anything wrong, even if it may seem annoying.

Here's the thing. I get it, kinda-sorta. You add something to the page and someone comes along and changes it. It feels a bit like A) your writing is being insulted, and B) your contribution was taken over by someone else.

But that's not the case. If rva was being insulting, that would be a problem. If rva's reasons boiled down to "I don't like this, deleting" that would be a problem. Tweaking the wording of entries isn't a problem. As said before, this wiki works by collaboration. You don't own examples. And even if there's not an obvious reason for tweaking an entry, unless they do something wrong, does it really matter? Like I said I've been here before and really someone editing the exact wording of my entry isn't that big of a deal. I'm not saying rva has never done anything wrong, they've made mistakes like any other editor. But this in and of itself is not rude or breaking rules. If you disagree with their edits, just discuss it with them like any other Troper.

As said before, until rva actually breaks any rules, there's nothing more to discuss, and there's certainly no reason to ask for them to be banned/suspended.

Edited by iamconstantine
rva98014 Since: Nov, 2012
2021-09-22 22:25:42

RasmusSabel: When I put "tweaked wording" as my edit reason it's because I've generally changed but a few words, or changed the tense of an example from past to present, or adjusted the wording of a phrase. I'd say 90% of the time it's obvious what I changed and why by looking at the before and after versions of the example in History. At least I assumed it was pretty straightforward. I'm always willing to explain myself for any edit I make if you'd do me the courtesy of a PM.


annete12: I've gone through my PM history and I only have a single message you sent to me back on April 12, 2021 regarding an edit I made to Even the Loving Hero Has Hated Ones on the Beauty and the Beast work page. Your message explained how I had misinterpreted the trope and didn't seem to require a follow up. Since them I've gotten nothing from you so if you've been questioning my Luca edits, I've not received any PMs about them. Sorry, please try again if you'd really like to discuss them.


iamconstantine: thank you for the kind words of support. For the record, they had some issues with my editing and I started a PM conversation with them about my editing goals and took their words to heart about massively rewriting entire examples. As I said, I'm always willing to talk about my edits via PM or discussion page.


Finally... perkeez.

In the interest of full disclosure, we were both suspended for conducting a "spirit of the law" edit war. Since then I have been careful to avoid directly interacting with perkeez wherever possible.

I would have been happy to simply let whatever grudges he holds against me fade with time, but the vehemence with which he jumped into this thread to condemn me is making me feel that he's holding his grudges too deep for simple avoidance.

Sadly, this is causing me to consider taking a more active stance on this and how to respond to his attacks. I'm still deliberating on how to best proceed but it will involve the moderators.

Edited by rva98014
perkeez Since: Aug, 2018
2021-09-22 22:36:55

It's ok. I will drop everything. I am just concerned about people's work being changed to the extent that there's no point in them doing the edit. This honest concern has been misinterpreted as a grudge. Rva claims I hold a grudge and that I took control of this thread, but these are false accusations. I simply presented my opinion while still accepting that this is not my thread, even if I did not say that. I don't know about rva, but I did not willingly step into an edit war; it was an honest attempt at improving a page gone wrong.

Edited by perkeez Just trying to improve any page that needs it.
rva98014 Since: Nov, 2012
2021-09-22 23:05:23

The thread was opened by RasmusSabel and I am attempting to make my peace with them.

That you will "drop everything" is nice but irrelevant. This wasn't your thread to begin with but you commandeered it to make sure your opinion was well presented.

Now you are back-pedaling and calling your behavior just "honest concern" when it's very obvious you are harboring a grudge.

Top