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 suspended them and removed the example.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Wish it didn't have to come to that.
Willliam Shakesman has just re-added the example unedited. I don't know whether or not he's the same man, but... it's a bit of a red flag too.
Regardless of whether they're the same person or not, their edits are not appropriate.
"He is very left-leaning, to the point where he discourages anyone else from having any other point of views that doesn't align with modern-day democratic opinions. He seems to heavily believe that anyone who is even slightly right-leaning is a fascist Nazi." Really?
I probably missed something in the original post, but isn't that entry a possibly violation of the Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment?
Edited by BKelly95
Yes, it is. I'd say that that kind of phrasing is only appropriate if the person in question has used it himself to describe his beliefs.
And in this case, the phrasing is not appropriate at all. It really reads like someone wanting to wonk about a content creator they don't like.
Add in that said someone might be a ban evader...
Bumping for mod response on William Shakesman possibly being a ban evader. Edits here: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/el.php?findfor=WilliamShakesman
The account seems to have started in March, not long after Draco Dragon 9 was suspended. His re-adding the example that a mod deleted is just...gah.
I don't know anyone on either side of the political spectrum who thinks that sexual predation apologism is acceptable.
I would personally suggest commenting out the example citing the rule of cautious editing judgement, with a note not to uncomment it until it is rewritten neutrally.
Rawr.
I'd also like to get a mod opinion on whether it's okay for me to delete the entry stating:
As someone who watches the web show in question, I've never seen the content creator make such a statement, and the entry itself comes off as an agenda-pursuing troper's personal wonk.
EDIT: Looks like someone else removed the problematic entry already.
Edited by dragonfire5000
I second dragonfire5000's statement. I also watch the show in question, and my own eyebrow raised when I saw Draco & Shakesman's entry.
Mods? Seriously — we've probably got a ban-evader with William Shakesman.
Deleted the entry, and left a strong recommendation to either come here or to discussion.
It's possible they're not a ban-evader, because someone's edit history only goes up to a certain amount of edits before it stops keeping track. It's possible they've been on the site much longer, but they've done so many edits that it doesn't go past March.
Still suspicious behavior though.
Edited by chasemaddigan
Draco Dragon 9 has repeatedly reposted an entry on The Dom Reviews that has many problems.
First, it's a bit of a shoehorn. Second, it uses broadly American terminology for global issues which would not make sense in other countries. And while this is obviously a secondary concern on a page that, by definition, involves content that's debatable, I personally admit to being uncomfortable with attempts to characterize a publicized zero-tolerance policy towards harassment or making apologies for sexual assault and abuse as "modern-day 'democrat' opinions."
They have resisted both attempts at rewriting the entry and calls to take things to the discussion page with unyielding denial and reversions to the original content and format whenever the example is removed or edited.