Ask The Tropers

Honestly, this has grated on me for years. A cleanup project seems like overkill, but it's not a good editing practice.

^ Though working on it in the actual ROCEJ short-term thread might help...

Yeah, this is annoying. I'd endorse a removal of most of these sinkholes.

I've used ROCEJ as a pothole when removing complaining on tropeable topics to tell people not to do it again, but I can see why this could be a problem. I'd be down for removing the potholes. Should the policy from then on be to tell people not to discuss the dicey topics at all?

If someone won't stop reverting edits to make a entry about a dicey topic more neutral or getting more into detail than they should when they've been told not to in edit reason or PM then that's something to bring to ATT and be dealt with

It's not like a snide reminder on the page is going to stop anyone that's already ignoring edit reasons and P Ms.

I also support the removal of the sinkholes.

^As do I.

Aye.

Please remove those sinkholes. Matters of internal policy like that really have no place on the wiki.

I guess that it is a problem. I agree they should be removed. I am in the process of creating an ROCEJ notifier in my sandbox, actually.

I admit I used those potholes in the past because I thought it was a genuine way to end a controversial example without getting too into details about it. Now I realized just how hypocritical and Flame Bait-y they can be.

So you're saying we should be cautious and exercise greater judgment about ROCEJ potholes? Sounds like somebody ought to make a rule.

Current wick count is over 2,000.

I suggest we take this to Long-Term Projects and start a discussion. We seem to agree it should be dealt with and it's good to coordinate the efforts and report about its progress in one place.

Also — we really could use any help we can get with de-wicking sinkholes and removing other misuse from the wiki. So please if you are reading this and you are casual editors or eager newbies who wish to edit more, please consider joining our efforts in Trope Repair Shop, Short-Term Projects and Long-Term Projects.

Removing or correcting 2 000 wicks is a never-ending Sisyphean task for one troper because every time you remove 10 wicks, 20 wicks appear elsewhere in no time, or even they are put back after a while. It's like going in circles or moving one step forwards, two steps backwards. However, for 100 tropers, it would be a piece of cake and could be dealt with in a day or two.

I created a thread for deleting sinkholes.

Okay, so we remove all the sinkholes where somebody says "that's all we'll say about the subject" and links to Rule of Cautious Editing Judgement. What other links to that page do we remove?

(Also, happy new year!)

A few times in the past, I was tempted in removing this kind of Word Cruft (think about it. That's the faulty category it falls into). However, I didn't do it myself because this was actually discussed in the past in ATT (the troper who suggested the removal of this was unable to get a supporting majority because the wording of their query read more like "I just find those disclaimers annoying"). It's good to know, now with a more understandable exposition of the problem, that the removal of these things is more supported.

An uncited additional problem originated by this is that it also gives an excuse to add zero-context examples ("this happens a lot in politics. And that's all we shall say about it"). If there's no way to add context to a topic without reliving controversial grounds, then it's not worth brining it up whatsoever.

^ It's actually cited on the Zero-Context Example page.

I'm surprised that this hasn't been established already. Why is it suddenly a problem now? Does nobody here on the wiki have the spine to bring this up?

I mean, it's pretty obvious its a problem when ROCEJ is on the Pothole Magnet page.

Would a cleanup thread be required for this? Maybe use this one: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=15639329360A22915500&page=1#11

^ Probably more like "people only just now got around to realizing it's a problem, or mobilizing to combat the problem".

Should we also edit the ROCEJ page tell people to not pothole that article?

Has an official decision been made on the matter?

Mod statement and a bunch of users agreeing ROCEJ potholes and snide warnings should be removed is not official enough?

Was just wondering if an official clean up was started.

A sinkhole cleanup has already been started. Here's the link again.

Wait, why is this a problem? I've thought it a good idea myself.

The reasons were discussed earlier in the thread.

For several reasons covered above:

1)It's more trouble than it's worth because such a warning will often serve to just antagonize the kind of people it's targeting

2)It's often used to create ZC Es

3)It's also often used as an instant shut-down for people to forbid broaching subjects that don't like

4)It's just plain unsightly and gives the text of the page a really snide and hostile tone

Eh, not sure I agree, but okay. And if people start edit warring, just give them a warning then report them?

People that want to edit-war are going to edit-war regardless of unsightly warnings (hell, if anything the warnings might spurn them to act even worse) so there's no practical reason for them.

Pretty sure this is needed for serious offences.

Why are you necroing such an old thread...

Well, lolz, let's look at your edit here as an example. The text you replaced ("especially his rabid advocacy of gun rights and his virulent racism and homophobia") is admittedly inflammatory. However, what would be lost by cutting the pothole?

• Overshadowed by Controversy: Nugent has become better known for his far-right political views and his sexual pursuits of underage girls than for his music.

It would still have enough context without the pothole - just note the ROCEJ in the description, and if somebody edit wars over it, just bring them to ATT.

(And why did you cut the part about his alleged pursuit of underage girls entirely?)

And another entry where you added a ROCEJ pothole should be deleted instead - it's a meta Tear Jerker which is not allowed. That's another issue with ROCEJ - it's a bandage people slap on problematic entries instead of actually removing them, assuming discussing controversies is okay if you say "That's all there is to say about that" when you didn't need to say anything to begin with.

I think it's good to mention Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment, but I also think people need to remember that IT APPLIES TO THE PERSON POSTING IT TOO.

So many people think they can post some wildly inflammatory crap, and then just drop ROCEJ at the end of it as a get-out-of-being-a-dick-free card. Like "and that's my 40 point essay on why [Insert Politician Here] is Satan, and let's just leave it at that."

Except they already started the flame war. They're not trying to have a civil discussion, they're trying to have their cake and eat it too, where they get to say whatever's on their mind no matter who it offends, and then play at decorum and sensibility in order to escape the consequences of their actions.

The Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment does not need to be mentioned, because it applies always, on all pages, to all examples, to all topics. Everyone who edits the wiki is expected to be familiar with our rules and guidelines. The obligation to know the rules is on tropers; the wiki is not obliged to remind tropers of rules they could possibly break.

As @Mimic 1990 has explained in the post above (which I agree with in all other points), mentioning the RoCEJ is also completely ineffective in actually making tropers observe it.

If we're going to just remove all the stuff explaining why Ryan's gone should we just unperson him like AH is and remove him entirely?

This is off topic and should be kept to something like the Achievement Hunter discussion pages, but I'll just say we don't need to remove every mention of a controversy. It just doesn't belong on Tear Jerker because that's a page that doesn't allow meta examples anymore. If it's relevant to the entry, you can mention it.

You know, I don't normally request locks for ATT queries, but mods, could you please lock this one? Apologies if that request ended up being hasty, but at least two queries have been necro'd recently (the second one to be necro'd between the two I know of is significantly less recent than this one, since it was from 2012).

It hasn't been just those two. There has been a rash of necros here recently for some reason