All The Tropes Wiki Project, Part XXV

[robkelk]

HornyLikeIAmA14YearOldGirl is at it again, posting what reads like he's declaring a wiki policy.

I commented.

The retcon he's referring to is rather divisive and a clear localization-based one, and while as a fan of the Guilty Gear series it is somewhat asinine and jarring given prior canon, I told him to keep his seethe under contorl.

The way I see it, no matter how stupid we find something, we can have private disgust for it, but so long as he does not let his disgust leak into the statement of objective fact, no matter how cringe or not it may be, he can whine all he likes, but we will not pretend said localization did not happen. We will make clear the fact it is a localization change and compared the original translation for clarity, but he can keep his seethe to the talk page so long as he does not make any attempt to rewrite history he disagrees with on the article pages.

If he proves defiant, then he should be disciplined.

Edit: Seems this was sorted out. Horny did bring up a legitimate reason for concern I cannot dispute. TV Tropes is notorious for pretending certain history did not happen if latter history agrees with their contemporary majority's feeling on the issue, and he was concerned we would follow suit, regardless of discrepancies. In the interests of honesty and acknowledging clashing canonical information, I believe it is reasonable to mention such discrepancies (in this case, a character who had been regarded as male is now called a female, despite prior canon information to the contrary), but we do so while leaving our personal feelings out of it, we simply state the varying facts between the periods of canon in question.

I've been looking into this, and it looks like there was a significant bit of info or two left out - I've posted what I found in the relevant thread.

Since this correction, I've had two messages from that user with thinly veiled whining about changes to examples they added - one revolved around a correction of a single example he added that I corrected along with many others implying that I singled it out as bad somehow, and the other focused on a clarification of "The Slap" to imply that I was condoning violence (by stating that people might understand a guy slapping someone who made fun of his wife[???]).

This one's trying to wear on my nerves, I swear.

Oh, dear.

In your opinion, is he repeating behaviour that he was given an official warning about in this post?

If he is, then we must follow through on what Bob said we would do.

EDIT, ten minutes later: I have read the edits in question and the responses to those edits. One of them appears to me to be a difference of opinion. The other, though, is clearly a passive-aggressive attempt to get the editor to undo the edit.

Issuing a two-week tempban for ignoring a mod warning, and removing the user's autopatrolled privileges.