All The Tropes Wiki Project, Part XXII

[LulzKiller]

There's been a whole discussion while I slept so I just want to respond to some things. I want to reiterate I never wanted anyone to leave, and that Geth's semi-ultimatum seemed to be in response to Rob's request that I lose my admin status for seeking consensus on whether to delete a page. I appreciate Labster's and Black Aeronaut's feedback on this. I want to respond to this post by Rob:

Thank you for being willing to have a discussion in good faith.

1) I've never made an infobox, and if there was something you specifically wanted, I'm sorry that I don't have good design skills, I appreciate that Labster gave you feedback, I thought I had already praised you for your infobox work on stuff like the Oscar Best Picture and a literature award, if I haven't; I appreciate it and I want you to continue doing good work on infoboxes.

While I appreciate the compliments, they don't give me any feedback.

I have repeatedly asked:

• What am I doing right?
  
• What am I doing wrong?
  
• What should be added?
  
• What should be taken away?
  

Right now, I'm getting nothing back regarding the templates. I need something, even if it's an honestly-stated "don't change anything".

2) I have been manually doing image licences for a decent bunch of TVT fork images that were unlicensed, is there something you wanted me to do differently or more?

The license templates are useful. Thank you for creating them.

The issue that I have been raising for months years is the magnitude of the work. Looney Toons tells uploaders that we have a legal obligation (his emphasis) to have the information present; I have in my sandbox three autogenerated lists of files that do not have the information present (all directly linked from this page that includes instructions on how to do the work); and despite how many times I've said that I would appreciate assistance with adding license information to the files that need it, I don't get that assistance unless somebody happens to notice the absence on a file while doing something else that needs to be done. (I did once get a request to do more work here, from somebody who hasn't done any license identification. We have a trope for that now.)

One reason why I am reluctant to take a break is that I know those three lists will be sitting and waiting for me, either virtually or completely untouched, upon my return. Everybody, I would be pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong. Please.

3) I contacted Geth because it was around 11pm UK time, and I wanted to quickly confirm my then knowledge of what we do with FF examples, he confirmed that with me and I moved to do some edits of that nature. Out of my relations with staff, I am "closest" (whatever that means) with Geth, I can quickly DM him on Discord about various matters including but not exclusively ATT. Me joining ATT was me just repaying the favour to Geth for help in other internet projects I used to be involved him, and here I am 5 years later. Maybe Rob thought me quickly pinging Geth sometimes to confirm current knowledge of ATT Policy was underhanded (if so, it was not the intention of anyone). But I can confirm with the AWB instance of bot jobs for disambiguating links, I asked Geth, and he told me to gather consensus first because of the nature of it. Geth from my point of view, tried in good faith to help me be efficient with my wiki work.

It's the perception. "The admins at ATT are hiding things, just like the admins at TVT" - not a direct quote from anyone, but a perception that's easy to make.

4) The discord server you mention is linked by ATT as an unofficial fan discord, which is at least a tenuous connection. BA's idea of an official Discord might be a good idea, if wanted.

We would need to be able to create accounts on it - and I have not yet found a discord server that either does not require an email address or will accept one of my "spam trap" disposable email aliases.

We would also need to publish a regular report of any decisions reached on a discord. With decisions made here, we can simply provide URLs to the entire discussions.

Per Geth statement of me walking away or something, I'm just starting a new uni year tomorrow, so I'll just be less active. I want to continue contributing if possible, and hopefully Rob continues to contribute, once this whole situation calms down. I don't want Rob gone, and I don't want Rob to want me gone.

I don't want you gone, and I've never said I want you gone. I just want you to take the hair-trigger off of the delete button, as per #2 on https://allthetropes.org/wiki/All_The_Tr...Wiki_Staff

I hope everyone (including Rob) reads https://allthetropes.org/wiki/All_The_Tr...Wiki_Staff because I think at some point this got lost here. I never tried to disrespect or insult anyone in this conversation. This situation has gotten out of hand.

Always happy to have good faith discussions; and that is what I have usually known ATT to be focused on:

1) I think the perhaps lack of my own creating infoboxes on stuff like awards, etc is that I was perfectly happy with your infoboxes as they are, the only possible improvement I can think of immediately is the inclusion of maybe an image. Stuff like the Discworld needs years added to each of the novels too. Just minor things that are easily solvable

In terms of infoboxes like book/episode/trope etc at top of articles I propose these issues:

I interpret elevator pitch as the same as laconic, others might not. We need to reduce confusion here.

Where do we define "central themes" and what is acceptable in those boxes or not, I think Rateyourmusic.com do a fantastic example of this with their "descriptors" and we may look for inspiration there.

What was your thought process per comparing infobox book here and on WP? Why did you remove stuff like country published from the WP and keep others, insights like this might help us achieve a infobox standard for ATT policy.

2)

I have to burst a bubble here: I've already been doing that very slowly over time.

Instead of using your list, I was using https://allthetropes.org/w/index.php?tit...ed_license as my goto, and licensing images that way, and then using some of the linked articles and fixing flaws, which is why you might have gotten the impression that I was only fixing images of articles I noticed, then sometimes it was the other way round. You may notice on the link how most of the number starting filenames are almost gone from the list, that was me, you can cross-reference with my contribs on files. I think because I am someone who does indeed do multiple different "projects" at once, to keep my ADD brain focused, can have helped make you feel that I was not working on them, I was. The NASA images I had to create the CC license that NASA Hubble used were an example of me using the link above.

I agree more should be done here, but IDK how to make the process faster. AWB is much better with text alone, than images. I don't know how to make it automate "ADD CATEGORY OF NAME OF LINKED PAGE", also I try to make actual judgements of the images themselves instead of just plastering fairuse on anything, so naturally with actors I try to check for commons images to replace them first. I try sometimes to reverse image search the original if there aren't.

This is something I also want to accomplish, and it is a frustration that we never communicated that to each other.

3)

I never meant to hide anything, and I understand a false perception may arise, if anything; I'm happy that this situation helped arise a very clear confusion regarding FF and CM examples. I thought all along all examples were kill on sight, and Geth had that perception too, it is clear both you and LT all along thought that only applied to the specific page itself. This is a classic example of how different intepretations can arise from the same text.

4)

I respect those who are concerned with privacy in regards to that. I think we should do the report with decisions made here too, due to this not being ATT/Miraheze

5) 

To be clear, the reason I think it escalated was that instead of your messages coming across as "I believe the wiki should be less deletionistic [towards defunct works] and I wish the staff should also not be so", it very explicitly came to multiple of us as "I really want [me] to no longer be staff".

Quotes:
"Should Derivative really be trusted with the mod bit?"
"I an already going through the deletion log, and I am becoming more convinced that you should not be trusted with the ability to delete pages. However, doing anything about that requires consensus."

Maybe you were frustrated, but this had the air of a rather hefty escalation of what was a misunderstanding per the FF examples, and a civil disagreement when it came to the ASM page. This naturally caused the argument between you and Geth to escalate, and now both of you want to take breaks, which is fine, but of course since both of you are valuable, this was a sad result to something that didn't need to happen.

Bob has at the start of the ASM talk made a solution I am interested with in terms of clarifying defunct works which are not accessible, and once were, I hope we can discuss how exactly to implement.