Ban-Evader Reversion Thread
Please read the outline below before proceeding any further.Important Note: This thread is devoted to reverting the edits of Tropers who have repeatedly chosen to evade their bans and suspensions, since serial ban-evasion is an act which is by its very nature a display of untrustworthiness, the fact that some ban-evaders outright engage in vandalism or add false information notwithstanding.
, due to the prolific nature of serial ban-evaders, there needs to be a team effort devoted to reverting any and all edits made by ban-evaders, especially serial ban-evaders, and investigating otherwise suspicious edits.
Depending on how much of the pages can be salvaged, they will either be noted in the B.E.R.T. Watch-List, locked if necessary, or cut if unsalvageable.
Any Frequently Vandalized Pages will also be monitored for suspicious activity.
If you notice a page is primarily edited by a certain ban-evader and/or their socks, please bring your findings to this thread so that cleanup can commence.
Potentially valid examples added by ban evaders should be transferred to Ban-Evader Example Rewrites so they can be salvaged. Make sure to mention transferring examples to the sandbox in your edit reason so others who may be willing to rewrite are aware.
Handling General Ban-Evader Edits:
To paraphrase what is stated here and here:
- Bad faith is not necessarily assumed with the contributions of first-time ban-evaders, and their contributions can simply be rephrased assuming they're accurate.
- Any serial (more than once) ban-evader cannot be taken at their word, so their contributions are subject to harsher scrutiny. Any verifiable examples can be reworded (especially if there are grammatical or formatting issues), but unverifiable, false, or otherwise prohibited edits are removed.
- Ban-evaders who deliberately contribute inaccurate or false information are able to have their contributions deleted with little hesitation.
- Rewording or reverting can be as simple as expanding on a ban-evader's existing edits, especially if it means adding sufficient context or trimming word cruft.
The subsequent portions of this section outline further how to handle different kinds of edits and contributions.
The following types of edits can be left alone to preserve wiki quality:
- Grammatical corrections.
- Spelling corrections.
- Formatting updates and corrections.note
- Crosswicked examples from other tropers.
- Indexing (if accurate).note
- Accurately written potholes.note
- Links to the correct Work/Recap/Instalment/Franchise page, including red-linked works.note
- Archive edits. (See here.)
- Launched Tropes.note
The following edits might need to be reworded in order to stay on the wiki, and depending on the examples, may need to be re-evaluated/verified in this thread or in the proper cleanup threads.
- Zero-Context Example expansion.
- Otherwise correctly formatted and valid edits.
The following edits should remain hidden until they can be verified, and deleted if proven inaccurate:
The following items must be sent to the cut-list/otherwise removed on principle (and if applicable, re-created by a trustworthy editor from scratch using a Sandbox):
- Pages created by ban-evaders using their socks.note
- Videos uploaded by ban evaders using their socks.note
- Please refrain from "popcorn posting". This means refraining making comments such as "man, they don't know when to quit", or otherwise unproductive posts.
- Please maintain an atmosphere of civility.
- Please do not withhold information about potential sock-puppetry or other ban-evasion related misconduct, as withholding such information makes one an accessory to ban-evasion.
- When reverting edits, please make notes in the sandboxes, and transfer any potentially valid edits to the appropriate sandbox.
- When reverting ban-evader edits, please use an appropriate (and civil) edit reason.
- Should you suspect a ban-evader has shown up in this thread, please do not make open accusations, trash-talk them, or engage in other uncivil behaviour. Quietly holler the post and wait for mod input; if necessary (especially if suspicious edits or issues unrelated to the forum are involved), make a query at "Ask The Tropers".
- Please respect the thread consensus once it has been established. If an item is resolved, it is usually resolved for a reason.
- If you have any suggestions for new policies, or wish to contest an old one, do it in the General Policy Discussion, not here.
Edited by SkyCat32 on Apr 13th 2024 at 10:23:58 AM
Lost in Space
Further investigation gives a high probability that they are the same person, but it's going to be another of those ban evaders that's really hard to catch because of how they hop around ISPs. I say "going to be"; they've been at it since at least 2017.
Edited by Fighteer on Nov 25th 2023 at 11:13:48 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
the Retromancer
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
Er, yeah, I wasn't really sure what to say there but I was thrown for a loop by that.
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
Lost in Space
The new rule (from on high) is thus:
- If a ban evader routinely adds false or inaccurate information, their contributions may be deleted.
- We will not delete otherwise valid contributions just because they are added by a ban evader.
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
So, video-wise does that mean I can no longer just blanket reject all of the videos spammed by the Sayaka socks? I've caught like 5 of them in the past two months alone just because they keep trying to post the same videos on every new account; letting the videos be approved would feel kinda wrong, and we'd lose an easy avenue of catching them. Same with other evaders who make the same edits or target the same pages.
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
Lost in Space
Sayaka is a "special case". Given how annoying she is to detect, we can continue the reversion policy.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
the Retromancer
I'd think inaccurate information, videos included, are very issues.
Then I guess videos are to stay as long as they fit.
e: ![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Do "serial ban evaders" make an exception of sorts then?
Edited by Amonimus on Nov 27th 2023 at 8:20:07 PM
TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup
Lost in Space
It does seem like that’s the rule but we’ll clarify. For now, continue reversions on the big-time problem cases. If it’s a one-off ban evader, however, don’t automatically revert.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
So, what does that mean for the reversions that got Kory to speak up in the first place? I was only rejecting the videos by Amour Le Fou, who was apparently dotheroar, and I think they qualify as "serial". Had it just been a random one-time ban evader I don't even know if I would have bothered.
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
the Retromancer
I think we need to determine what "serial ban evader" means (I'd assume bounced more than once).
It would also help if B.E.R.T. Watch-List and Frequently Vandalized Pages were merged (they literally serve the same purpose) and made user-focused instead of page-focused so we'd have a "Wanted!" Poster list of known socks.
Edited by Amonimus on Nov 27th 2023 at 11:03:57 PM
TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup
The Draftsman of Doom
That might not be a bad idea.
Friends forevermore
I still have an image idea for the B.E.R.T. watchlist, but it only makes sense at the current title.
Yes, it's exactly what you'd expect.
I had a dog-themed avatar before it was cool.
Per ATT, Jinpuu is a sock of No Homers Club Fanxxx 1, ashaunti, and toushin. Though the rules about ban evasion have been updated, Jinpuu qualifies as a serial ban evader (having had at least three previous socks), they've ban evaded to pursue a Single-Issue Wonk, and their grammar is poor overall. With all that in mind...is it okay to revert away?
x4 I'd say "serial ban evader" would be those that are like Sayaka, especially those creating a third account and/or more after their first two bans. So that should warrant automatic reversions, regardless of text or video.
If it's on their second accounts, I think case by case basis? Like how accurate their edit was - if accurate, keep; but revert if it's incorrect info and/or the editing matches their previous bad habits.
the Retromancer
By bounced once I've meant the third account.
TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup
he/him
Based on conversation with the admins yesterday -
We don't assume good faith with edits by serial ban evaders. They've repeatedly proven they are not here in good faith. So:
- If we confirm the edit/example is accurate, we keep it. That doesn't mean we have to keep their wording, especially if there are grammar or tone issues.
- if we can't confirm the edit/example is accurate, or if it's a more subjective edit that goes against guidelines in some other way (e.g. rocej), we cut it.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 28th 2023 at 8:12:41 PM
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
The question still remains though as to who counts as a "serial" ban evader. Obviously Sayaka does, but dotheroar? HC? Jinpuu and the other accounts I'm too lazy to type? At what point do we start enforcing things?
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
Filthy casual
I'm sure at least three socks would be a good indicator that someone is intending to be a continual problem.
(Annoyed grunt)
he/him
I'd personally stop assuming good faith if they come back after the first sock puppet. At that point we know they're not taking the hint - and not following the contact form appeal process.
At which point (mod hat firmly off) all of the measures above make sense to me.
Lost in Space
I agree that "serial" in this case would mean more than once. Pithily, they get one credit of good faith the first time they ban evade, under the assumption that they might not understand our rules. But if they keep at it, they become a repeat offender and we no longer assume good faith.
(They still get bounced for ban evasion, of course. That hasn't changed.)
Edited by Fighteer on Nov 28th 2023 at 8:53:14 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
the Retromancer
I guess that fair. To some making a second account is a natural reaction when the first one stops working. If they make a third, then they're definitely with an agenda.
TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup
Filthy casual
Yeah, I dunno why I said three.
(Annoyed grunt)
The Draftsman of Doom
I think it's entirely fair to assume bad faith if a troper evades a ban more than once. As previously stated, I am normally not inclined to take the word of someone who evaded a suspension on a good day, considering that it's considered a breach of trust. I think it's entirely fair that we consider such edits vandalism, with the exception of anything outlined otherwise under "resolved items".
How is this going to affect the RLSM, Complete Monster, and Magnificent Bastard procedures?
Lost in Space
Any trope that already has a cleanup/voting procedure would follow that procedure, regardless of who recommended an example. If someone repeatedly ban evades for the purpose of suggesting or voting on candidates, that's handled just like they did the same for the wiki as a whole.
Broadly speaking, if candidates are valid, they should be considered no matter who proposed them. But the reason we banned most of these people in the first place is that they are making bad proposals.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Edited by JHD0919 on Nov 25th 2023 at 9:09:43 AM
I'm lovin' it. (My Troper Wall)