This is the thread we use to talk things over with people who have received a suspension notice. A lot of the time the notice goes out just so we can explain how seriously we take certain things, not because we want the person to feel bad and go away.
If you're suspended, give What to Do If You Are Suspended a read, then post here to begin your appeal. We try to respond to appeals in order via batch posts every few days. If a moderator has responded to your appeal, you will receive a notification in your private messages, even if you're suspended from PMs.
The Forum Rules
apply here.
Don'ts
- Don't be rude. Rule 1 applies here, too.
- Don't try to negotiate your suspension outside of this thread, such as by sending Private Messages to moderators or posting elsewhere. Such activity may be thumped or otherwise removed, and may warrant an additional suspension block if it keeps happening. All communications have to take place within this thread.
- Don't respond to other suspended users. This is a place for you to discuss your suspension, not others'.
- Don't post multiple times about your appeal if it hasn't been a few days since your last reply from us, since it makes it more difficult to compose responses. If you've posted, we're likely looking at it, and kindly request you to be more patient.
- Don't make another account to try and get around your suspension. This is called ban evasion and will get you bounced. (Again, read What to Do If You Are Suspended if you don't know what these words mean.)
Edited by Synchronicity on Jul 15th 2023 at 11:35:01 AM
I should? Haven't seen that requirement for other people here. I thought you want people to contribute to this site. And tbh, I don't think it's fair to delete my edits without telling me I did something I shouldn't have, and then revoking my editing rights when I try to put my entry back in.
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
If you browse through this thread, you'll find that we always want the banned user to demonstrate that they understand the rules and policies and that they're willing to comply.
If we see a user doing harm to the Wiki (such as putting things in the wrong place, edit warring, or nattering,) we give them an edit ban to prevent them from doing more harm while we deal with the mess they left. When they try to edit again, they'll see right away that they need to come talk to us. You know this by now.
What you did wrong was that you put stuff that belongs in YMMV in the main page, and after it was removed (with a note saying that it should go in YMMV because it was an audience reaction, mind you; we do look at these things,) you put it back in. Repeatedly adding or removing edits is called Edit Warring, and we ban for that even if your edit was correct - which, BTW, yours wasn't because, as you were repeatedly told by many different people, audience reactions go in YMMV.
To get your editing privileges back, you need to promise me that you'll read the rules again and that in the future you'll refrain from Edit Warring. If you think you're being wronged, you call the mods (Holler or PM.) You don't Edit War over it.
We sometimes give people a second chance. Third chances are almost unheard of. Keep this is mind if we let you back.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Ravenous Sophovore
As the mod who did the initial investigation, I'd like to request that you read Repair Dont Respond, Edit War, and YMMV. Out of your edits, only 1 wasn't problematic for one of the reasons on those pages.
Waiting on a TRS slot? Finishing off one of these cleaning efforts will usually open one up.
All right, I've read the linked rules and I promise to abide by them. I would also like to mention that I'm not in the habit of ignoring notes by mods, I know how dangerous that can be. I'm still not sure where it is, because the PM I got (Unfortunately I read it when it was already too late) didn't mention the YMMV page IIRC. I'm a little confused about how this went, but I'm sorry if this caused you unnecessary work.
So, would you please let me in again?
I would also request a clarification: what happens when the facts are unclear, for instance in cases of contradictory evidence in a work, which might influence whether a trope applies or not? Is it OK to mention that it is unclear (some people don't agree) on the main page or is it safer to put this on the YMMV page and put it up for debate? Since there's never a consensus on anything on the internet, I'm not quite sure when it's ok to edit the main page.
Ravenous Sophovore
Lifting the suspension.
Tropes that are subjective or an audience reaction will have a banner at the top of the trope. That's the easiest way to tell if it's an objective trope or not. In general, if it's a reaction to the work rather than something found in the work itself, it goes on YMMV and if it's a trope that relies on an audience reaction (Complete Monster, Moral Event Horizon, etc), it goes on YMMV. Anything without the YMMV banner doesn't go on the YMMV page.
Examples Are Not Arguable. If you think a trope applies, add it with enough context to explain why. If someone disagrees, talk it out and decide if it does. In general, either a trope applies or it doesn't. It's possible that a trope appears in a work, but it was Played With, making it not a straight example and harder to identify. It's also possible that it's played differently at different parts of the work (Soft Glass applies in episodes 1-10, but is then averted in 11, with horrific results...), then mention how it applies and where, and when it's Played With.
If you're really unsure, the discussion page is a good place to ask.
edited 14th Mar '12 11:47:15 AM by Madrugada
Waiting on a TRS slot? Finishing off one of these cleaning efforts will usually open one up.
Here's the problem. I didn't cause an Edit War or act within one. I didn't put examples in the wrong areas. All I did was put an edit (one that, as of yet, has not been taken off, just edited a little), and not realize that my computer's censor was censoring phrases that it found offensive, even if they were not.
If I still have to somehow "make you want me back" or some such when I solved the issue that caused my suspension, I don't see the point in continuing. I fixed the issue that I had as far as I can see, and simply ask what else to do if there is anything.
I do not remember the exact post in this thread, but I do know that the wording to me was essentially "once the TV Tropes server can accommodate for such software, we will disable the suspension." I had the software removed by a complete computer wipe, and do not see what else I can do in order to show that I worked to solve the issue. If I need to do more than simply solve the issue (seeing as I was not told that I was in an Edit War or any other scenario, simply that I had software that messed with the pages by unknowingly), then I do not know what to say.
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
I and ccoa have both been talking to Ieldra the last couple of posts.
Just to be clear.
As for your ban, I'm gonna take your word that you're not gonna have another nanny bot on when you edit again. If we have a problem with you again, you're out for good. Not because we're vindictive, but because we've got better things to do than clean up after a mess someone else made, even if they didn't mean to.
That said, I can easily imagine how annoying in could be to find out that someone had installed a nanny bot on your browser and caused you trouble in the process. Here's hoping it won't happen again.
Your ban is lifted.
edited 14th Mar '12 12:46:20 PM by BestOf
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
I'm here. Now then, Sure, I tried to make a point about Complete Monster and Sonicchu regarding the recent information I found out about the author and his recent indictment. Yes, I was angry about that, and I do apologize for it. However, I placed those issues on Discussion pages about the nature of Complete Monster and Sonicchu respectively, where discussion and opinion-as far as I'm aware-is allowed. I didn't change any main page, nor did I dispute any change I did make after a point was made and the conversation made its conclusion.
I would rather like my ability to edit back, please. Since, of course, I'll be good.
Lost in Space
We've established that Complete Monster is never to be used for anyone in Real Life, ever. TV Tropes is not about real people; it's about works and tropes. Your stated intention to disregard that policy is why I suspended you, because I want to make it clear that it's not something we tolerate.
I don't care how obnoxious CWC or any other author may be, the tropes are about their work, not them. Clear? That's why Sonichu is locked.
FYI, Discussion pages are still subject to rules about civility. Your entry there was reported precisely because it looked like the sort of thing likely to devolve into a serious problem.
edited 14th Mar '12 2:05:45 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Crystal. Sure, yeah.
Yeah, fair enough about the discussion pages too.
edited 14th Mar '12 2:10:12 PM by Aurabolt
Lost in Space
'Kay, lifted the suspension. Happy troping.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Okay, so I'm about ninety-nine percent sure I got suspended over edit warring in the Nanoha Force page, which I won't agree - but the entry I kept deleting was something that was not a unanimous opinion, but basically one guy whining that they're not giving complete attention to a character he likes in exactly the way he'd like. It was pretty much a useless entry.
Ravenous Sophovore
It doesn't matter who's "right" or "wrong" in an edit war - it's against the rules regardless. You work it out in discussion, by PM, or call in a second opinion from Ask The Tropers.
Waiting on a TRS slot? Finishing off one of these cleaning efforts will usually open one up.
I tried telling him not to add it again in the thread for it, but he did anyway.
My editing has suddenly turned off. What's the reasoning behind this?
Field Primus
Same here. This is unexpected.
I looked back through my most recent edits - stuff on Yet Another Fantasy Gamer Comic - and didn't find anything really out of character for the wiki, except for a thing where I couldn't think of the title of the trope (the only title I could think of was absolutely the wrong trope, even though the title itself sounded like the thing I wanted), so I just put it down in a sort of comment and hoped the next person to drop by would know which one I meant. Maybe not the best decision (I was tired), but is it a bannable thing? I've done it before a few times (mostly while trying to flesh out the pitifully underappreciated character sheet for Elf Only Inn)... if it's really that bad then I'll stop putting down tropes unless I'm sure of the link.
Other than that, can't think of anything I've done recently that was anything like bannable. I've been on this wiki for ages and gotten a PM now and then, but never really gotten in big trouble, and I try to contribute where I can. (Thing I'm proudest of: Starting the SoYouWantTo namespace, which is happily growing in its own little corner of the site.) I'm pretty sure I'm more an asset than a liability, so please explain to me what I did wrong (or if it was a mistake) and let me get back to work :)
Only the curious have, if they live, a tale worth telling at all.
Cutmaster-san
@MwtP: You were banned by the Fast One for reasons I'm looking into.
@Kilyle: You guessed correctly. Poorly formatted placeholders are very much a bad thing. Wiki pages are not rough drafts. If you don't know the name of a trope, head over to Lost And Found before adding an entry. Since you've already said that you'd stop that if it weren't right, I'll gladly lift your editing suspension under the condition that you go fix Characters.Elf Only Inn before resuming your normal editing routine.
edited 17th Mar '12 5:01:17 AM by Ironeye
I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.
Harley Quinn hyenaholic
Please, I've asked to have my edit ban lifted twice but nobody's responded. I've read the rules again. I do try to follow them; it's not always easy but I do try to follow them. I mean, I don't deliberately break them.
Can I PLEASE have my edit ban lifted now?
Ravenous Sophovore
@Justin - I don't think you quite understand what I'm saying. It doesn't matter how wrong the other guy was or if he was breaking the rules, too. That only works in preschool.
If someone else won't stop edit warring, then you let the staff know, either via PM or through Ask The Tropers. Someone else breaking the rules is not an excuse for you to do the same.
Waiting on a TRS slot? Finishing off one of these cleaning efforts will usually open one up.
@Harley: You were banned for removing examples without discussion. Why did you think that was a good idea?
edited 17th Mar '12 9:00:27 AM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Does anyone know why I've been blocked yet? 
re Manwiththeplan: This was in Ask The Tropers
In 27 Feb i removed a mention about the lack of an element of the game version in Pokemon Best Wishes with the following edit reason:"Of the Averted Trope page: "Even though There Is No Such Thing as Notability, averting is generally not an example for mentioning on a trope page, except for tropes that are so common that the list of aversions is actually shorter, such as Limited Wardrobe." " in 5 Mar, Manwiththeplan put a different mention about the lack of a different element in the anime and used "Adaptation Decay" in the example. I removed it in 7 feb with the following edit reason: "adaptation decay only accepts in-universe examples, natter". In 8 Mar, Manwiththeplan put again both the mentions to the game i removed, with a pothole to Broken Base, an YMMV. Edit reason: None. Out of note, exists a character page to the game version: Pokemon Black And White
This is edit warring.
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
Not an edit ban, but: PM turned off, would like it turned back on. Got angry and swore at another troper. Won't do that. (Also happy to talk it over if that's not it.) I do use the system often and mostly productively; it will be "all productively" in the future.
edited 17th Mar '12 9:46:40 PM by rodneyAnonymous
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.
I did not see that Feb 27th editing reason, actually. I honestly had no idea I was edit warring with anyone on any subject. I'm sorry.
I wish Magbas had just PM'ed me about the issue, but in any case, I promise I won't do it again. Mentions of adaptation decay from the games will stay off the anime page in my edits.
edited 17th Mar '12 6:38:24 PM by ManwiththePlan
Rather than tell us that you want to be reinstated, you should be telling us why we should want you back.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.