FANDOM


  • So why shouldn't I undo a mod's edit? Suppose for example a mod decided to just replace an article with gibberish, like, say, replace the Sleeping Beauty article with "I like to watch porn", and felt they were entitled to do so simply because they're a mod and above the law. Would you let them make the edit despite being a clear act of vandalism just because a mod did it? Or would you remove the edit, whether made by a mod or not, due to being an incorrect edit at the very least and an act of vandalism at worst?

    And quite frankly, the Strange Lion's more comparable to the Joker from Injustice than he ever was to Sarousch (especially when Sarousch was never tied in any way to Frollo's villainy, whereas the Strange Lion was directly responsible for Scar's descent into villainy, so there's actually a pretty big difference between the two). And last I checked, Joker from Injustice (and by THAT, I mean the guy Superman killed in the beginning of the game and in the prequel comic) qualified largely because he was the reason Superman turned into a villain and a brutal tyrant (and Superman from that game, at least on here, is explicitly considered a Complete Monster).

    Besides, last I checked from Tapatalk's archives, DocColress has done quite a bit of abuse of power in the past couple of years, literally deleting edits just to leave his own edits in place, and has even banned users for annoying him personally. Heck, when he banned me a couple of years back, he undid quite a bit of edits I made, many of which didn't even have anything to do with the Complete Monster category and were completely unwarranted in removing said edits.

      Loading editor
    • I can't stand DocColress too. Yet I still follow some of his edits.

      A year ago he removed every edit on this wiki and from then on I knew this year this would happen again. So I didn't remove too much this year and I still keep going.

      From what I can tell Joker is far more culpable (to the point using a bomb) while the other simply brainwashes someone into becoming the Big Bad. And in the latter's case the victim goes along, so the victim comes off as worse. Okay, maybe he can stay here, but you risk a block.

        Loading editor
    • Glen Gable wrote: I can't stand DocColress too. Yet I still follow some of his edits.

      A year ago he removed every edit on this wiki and from then on I knew this year this would happen again. So I didn't remove too much this year and I still keep going.

      From what I can tell Joker is far more culpable (to the point using a bomb) while the other simply brainwashes someone into becoming the Big Bad. And in the latter's case the victim goes along, so the victim comes off as worse. Okay, maybe he can stay here, but you risk a block.

      Yeah, and the Strange Lion was clearly planning on using Scar's Roar of the Elders to his own devices (and his aims for the Roar of the Elders clearly weren't good at all from what was shown and implied), not to mention it's heavily implied that Scar didn't seem to even CONSIDER deciding to become king over Mufasa until the Strange Lion came along and planted the idea in his head. Yes, Scar was still ultimately very guilty of his crimes and thus still a complete monster, but at the same time, it's heavily implied he probably would have remained loyal to Mufasa if the Strange Lion never came along, or at least wouldn't have his jealousy reach critical levels. That's mainly why I thought he ought to be included.

        Loading editor
    • Okay. Let's end the talk here.

        Loading editor
    • By the way, to let you know - looking at your activity, I don't find reason enough to block you from the Wiki. While I know you don't have a high opinion of me, I will try my best to be fair to you and others on this site. It would take something severely unruly and troublesome for me to block a user, and so far it's not happened with you, so you don't have to worry. :)

        Loading editor
    • I understand.

        Loading editor
    • DocColress wrote: By the way, to let you know - looking at your activity, I don't find reason enough to block you from the Wiki. While I know you don't have a high opinion of me, I will try my best to be fair to you and others on this site. It would take something severely unruly and troublesome for me to block a user, and so far it's not happened with you, so you don't have to worry. :)

      Fine by me. I also suggest you not try to undo any edits I make unless they are extremely warranted (eg, stuff like this should NOT happen). I still think the 1959 version of Maleficent more than qualifies as a Complete Monster, though (especially when, going by the criteria you added in regarding what qualifies as being beyond Bog Standard, Child Murder [the death curse she afflicted onto Aurora that only got mitigated thanks to Merriweather's interference after Maleficent had already fled the scene] and Mind Rape [the whole scene with Prince Phillip] are among the ones that meet qualification [besides, the only reason Maleficent didn't get an opportunity to curse Aurora until literally the last possible minute was more her minions' fault for not taking into account aging, and had they done so, I think it would have been very clear that Maleficent would have tried to get a child Aurora to prick the finger, since she clearly issued a manhunt against Aurora during the intervening 16 years].), and I know that at least one other person thinks so as well.

        Loading editor
    • @Weedle McHairybug: (I forget why that one edit even happened). And if you're still on that Maleficent subject even after all this time (she's approvable as a YMMV entry, what more are you asking for?), then you, unlike users Glen Gable, are someone I feel I might inevitably need to put my foot down against. With your current drama concerning the Strange Lion and edits inserting bigoted politics into pages and outright sympathizing with Disney's Frollo, an inarguably approved CM, makes me think you don't have the best grasp on this trope, or on morality in general, or on keeping your very personal thoughts and feelings out of managing things on this Wiki.

        Loading editor
    • I do NOT violate what "Examples That Should NOT Be Seen Here" writes.

      I say she has a very depraved character, but doesn't do enough to stand out.

        Loading editor
    • @Glen Gable: Did anyone accuse you of that? Or is this in reference to Weelde?

        Loading editor
    • The second.

        Loading editor
    • I see. Unfortunately, he's been trouble both on Villain's Wiki and on here for as long as I can recall, and at this point I'm at a loss on how to deal with him...

        Loading editor
    • DocColress wrote: (I forget why that one edit even happened). And if you're still on that Maleficent subject even after all this time (she's approvable as a YMMV entry, what more are you asking for?), then you, unlike users Glen Gable, are someone I feel I might inevitably need to put my foot down against. With your current drama concerning the Strange Lion and edits inserting bigoted politics into pages and outright sympathizing with Disney's Frollo, an inarguably approved CM, makes me think you don't have the best grasp on this trope, or on morality in general, or on keeping your very personal thoughts and feelings out of managing things on this Wiki.

      I've gone to church, know full well the Ten Commandments and even the Catchism, and make sure to go to Confession as soon as I've sinned and am fully aware of it (I haven't gone recently, though that's only because I'm not entirely sure whether I sinned and don't want to waste a confession on something that wasn't actually a sin) and I have a good enough sense of morality to avoid voting for the Clintons due to pretty clear crimes they've committed in Arkansas, not to mention their backing abortion, aka the murder of the unborn, and avoided voting for Obama because of his radically pro-abort policies (no, his race had absolutely nothing to do with it, as he could have just as easily been white and I STILL would never vote for him due to his pro-abortion record alone. In fact, in the 2016 elections, my choice of a candidate was in fact Ben Carson, you know, the doctor who wrote the book Gifted Hands? And part of the reason I voted for him was in fact his pro-life credentials, being staunchly pro-life.). And I never said anything about sympathizing with Frollo. Just because I don't approve of someone being listed as a Complete Monster doesn't mean I actually sympathize with them (I have complete disgust for Solid Snake in Metal Gear Solid and Metal Gear Solid 2, yet I wouldn't even DARE add him to the Complete Monster page because he's still depicted as the hero/good guy, and heck, I made sure to list he was not allowed into the trope precisely because of that DESPITE committing loads of heinous stuff that would have made most others qualify by that time.). I do acknowledge that like Frollo, I have an intense fear of God, however. The closest I got to actually mentioning I sympathized with Frollo was telling GethN7 that I found Hugo's acts with Djali to be far more disgusting and thought Frollo was more sympathetic by comparison regarding his lust for Esmerelda, and that's because God in the bible would NEVER have approved of homosexuality at all, and to not only depict one of the protagonists as such, but even have the audacity to depict one of the gargoyles of Notre Dame Cathedral (God's house, in other words) as being such, is a clear act of blasphemy by the guys who wrote the movie. Just read up on Sodom and Gomorrah, and how God reacted to that (and in particular, read up the bit about how the inhabitants attempted to rape God's angels, who were male BTW, and had no interest in Lot's daughters). And quite frankly, I fail to see how someone who actually thinks the likes of Satan, of all people, fails to qualify as a Complete Monster despite him literally being called such in the Bible tropes can really be called someone who understands morality.

      And just as an FYI, Frollo was redeemable compared to Maleficent. Let me make things a bit more simple for you. Frollo stayed his hand in killing Quasimodo as a baby and raised him as a foster son out of fear for his immortal soul, and made no attempt at killing him until late in the movie. Maleficent inflicted a death curse on Aurora as a baby and fled the scene while cackling, and also issued a manhunt specifically to ensure the curse was fulfilled for the intervening 16 years with the clear implication that Maleficent most certainly would have made sure Aurora pricked her finger long before the sun setting on her 16th birthday had they found her much earlier.

      And I also heard your mod rights were revoked recently on the other ATT, BTW, and revoked by GethN7 no less (who, BTW, made clear recently that while still thinking Frollo qualified as a Complete Monster also thinks Maleficent more than qualifies as well). So unless you want something similar to occur on here, I suggest you can it and include her as well.

      Glen Gable wrote: I do NOT violate what "Examples That Should NOT Be Seen Here" writes.

      I say she has a very depraved character, but doesn't do enough to stand out.

      On the contrary, being the Mistress of All Evil DOES make her stand out (and besides, last I checked, Maleficent inflicted a death curse on a then-newborn Aurora and made no attempt for a way out for her, not to mention it being implied that she would have cursed Aurora even if she were invited for the sheer heck of it, issued a manhunt against her, and also not only imprisoned Prince Phillip, but also explicitly committed mind rape against him, so she definitely stood out), and given how much pride she has in being. She's even considered the leader of the Disney Villains for that reason. If anything, going by overall scope of crimes, Frollo barely stands out by comparison even WITH his Gypsy hatred.

      Besides, I moved her to those who should not be removed, so I didn't violate anything (and besides which, I removed her from that section anyway).

        Loading editor
    • Alright, that about does it. You're espousing all your twisted religious dogma and misplaced fear of God, ultra conservative politics, homophobia and bigoted hatred for groups of people you see as "sinful" just like over on Villain's Wiki in the past, and are talking matters that are absolutely nonsensical. (Like, from a moral standpoint, Hugo crushing on Djali is nowhere near as heinous as every atrocity Frollo committed, including absolutely wishing to rape Esmeralda no matter how much you try to deny that to yoursel and to others. And never did I say Satan didn't qualify; many versions of him do, and the original New Testament version of him is still cited.) Other users might make mistakes or be troublesome due to unsteadiness with the WIki's rules and regulations. But you? You are just vile.

      And yet Frollo still has a more apalling rapsheet of vile deeds than Maleficent. Maleficent's villainy is bog standard fairy tale evilness in comparison to Frollo.

      If we don't see all the evil she committed not related to Aurora or Philip, then that Mistress Of All Evil thing is an Informed Attribute. And Queen Grimhilde is made the leader of the Disney Villains just as often - ever seen Fantasmic? I fail to see how a guy who murders, attempts outright infanticide (kill the baby AS A BABY rather than curse the baby to die when she's grown up to be 16), abusive parenting, controlling tactic and gaslighting, attempted genocide, torture, lust and attempted rape, mass arson, religious hypocrisy, abuse of power, and attempted murder of the lowest kind fails to stand out compared to a generic fairy tale villain, but that might be just me. And several other people.

      "Can it and include her as well?" You mean include Maleficent, as though you're forcing me at gunpoint to include a character you personally think is an example? Yeah, that will absolutely not fly here. Consider yourself blocked indefinitely.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, upon review, I have to endorse this block as well.

      Besides, the logic offered for Frollo getting the CM crown and Maleficent not is pretty compelling. Given how flat her character ultimately is, I have to reconsider whether she qualifies, the story pretty much made her the villain by default and given how low her onscreen villainy is, and I'd have to concur she's more a bog standard fairy tale bad guy than someone who revels in killing kids.

      Also, this is not a place to soapbox about your social, political, or religious views, it a place for tropes and the works they are about. Please take those views elsewhere.

        Loading editor
    • In agreement about Maleficent. She's the worst that her story and setting has to offer for sure, but when her worst deeds are cursing a newborn princess to die in 17 years time, forcibly mentally manipulating that princess to almost kill herself years later, and being sadistic towards the prince she's locked up, with the rest of her deeds being standard villainy such as abusing (but not even killing) her minions and trying to kill ther heroes, she doesn't really hit the necessary horrible vileness needed to qualify for this trope, especially when other, non-powered Disney Villains such as Frollo, Sykes, McLeach, and Rourke stand out in their villainy in ways far worse.

      And yes, thank you. Especially as those particular views are going to be very disturbing and distresing to read for many ("Homosexuality is a sin and God hates queers!" is NOT smiled upon these days), so rambling on them without any caution is not welcome or productive on a site like this.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.