Edit banned/Suspended - would like to edit again.

I went purple? Mmh, must have been my avatar, if only I could change it. Editing profile = posting apparently. -w-

Out of place is fun in a peculiar way though isn't it? ;)

Anyway, sure, yes whatever.

And sorry for posts that takes pain to understand.

How ironic while fitting but thanks. I wasn't actually getting my hopes up.

Don't even get to give my "nice knowing you though". :(

edited 20th Oct '13 4:33:24 PM by PsychoFreaX

Hi, my editing privilege has been suspended a few months ago (July if I remember). The reason was an edit war I stupidly continued, you know well the case, I swear it won't happen again and I'm not here to argue about it. Can I be allowed to edit again? My list of potential contributions keeps growing, and I'm just eager to share it with the community...

Is there any chance for it to be restored? Please, what should I do? Wait a few more months?

Just something that I would like to find out about since my ban seems to be a follow up with an PM about an edit that I have made.

Now note, what was said in the PM was purely an explanation of the edit made. Nothing more, nothing less. Nor was I expecting to re-edit the page on the base subject since, it was an arguable point.

As much as I could ask for my apparent suspension to be lifted, I am more concern with the lack of dialogue.

edited 22nd Oct '13 12:32:17 AM by TheLeangle

Okay, now I would like to ask about my edit suspension.

The fact that I do make errors is something that I am aware of, but it is something that I would rather have control over than what happened here. As much as this is a means of dialogue, I find it rather heavy handed honestly... if I was told of the errors, I would have corrected them assuming that I didn't catch the errors myself.

But that never happened, Fighteer... since I am here attempting to understand what trips your administration into suspending my account. What I lack here is the context, which edits of mine are the focus of this suspension? Because, I don't know which one that would be.

edited 22nd Oct '13 1:02:01 AM by TheLeangle

Hello. I'm guessing I broke a rule, because I just got suspended after my first ever edit. I apologize for whatever I did wrong (I guess it was adding links to pages that proved a point on the YMMV), and I would like to be unsuspended. However, to avoid this dilemma in the future, I also would like the admin that originally suspended me (if you read this) to tell me what it was I did wrong, so I don't accidentally do this, again.

Okay, what did I do this time?

I had my editing privileges suspended because of a petty vendetta over matters on the World War Z Headscratchers. The issue can be folowed on this link (as best as I can do since I cannot link to the discussion in my present circumstances) here: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Headscratchers/WorldWarZ . However, it began over the use of a single word, and continued because of one Troper- Mr Death's- false accusation and refusal to accept the results or honor an agreements brokered by the forum herald.

The issue arose when I made a blunt edit to the World War Z Headscratchers page describing some of the problems with the Battle of Yonkers. In it, I used the term "Idiot" to refer to the author, Max Brooks, because in the case of his treatment of military strategy it is very fitting and uncontroversial. The author's grasp of science/military science in regards to the Battle of Yonkers is admitted even by fans such as myself, commentators, and the general public of the thread to be dubious, even if his other writing merits are considerable.

Since I have seen this term used before and repeatedly in this context throughout TV Tropes on this headscratchers and was otherwise a contributing, reasoning part of the discussion (as people are welcome to see and judge in the context) I was acting in good faith and on what I thought was uncontroversial ground in another colorful but civilized debate between myself and my opponent at the time.

Mr Death deleted my response, my opponent's counter response, and my re-response soon after, citing this reason:

====================== If your argument amounts to "Brooks is AN IDIOT" then you're not talking about the book any more, you're bashing the author. You appear to not care about discussing the story so much as taking the excuse to call the man an idiot again. ====================================================================

In effect, he was alleging that I was not contributing to the conversation, and in effect that I was no longer making a logical argument or talking about the book.

This is untrue, as both I and that page's History and Discussion pages can prove. In the dispute when we took it to the discussion page, it became apparent that Mr Death was "blinded by the I-word." He instantly assumed that because I used it- a single time, as an afterthought- it instantly turned the rest of my argument into a pure slur containing no value or discussion of the book.

This is also false. Now, I might have been able to understand this on some level given that I did use Allcaps on that and a few surrounding words before going back to my usual style of writing, and I accept that was not the most appropriate. However, that does not change the fact that the comments were still productive, polite, and part of the debate.

Furthermore, there is no rule against saying anything against the authors on the TOS (which I noted very well). It is an offense to flame, but flames are off topic, ad-hom, and contribute nothing. It makes no mention or restriction of name-calling towards the subject in a fair conversation.

The flawed nature of Mr Death's claims was proven when Septimus Heap removed the comments in question (after I replaced it again with a reason) and SH directed us to take it to the Discussion to "sort it out" (his words, as can also be seen on the history). This I willingly did, because I hoped having a newcoming member of the staff to arbitrate would help settle the matter and create a binding solution.

During this time, I pointed out that Mr Death's actions and characterization of myself and my edits were both rude and objectively false. I successfully argued they were part of a reasoned, civil discussion and that they had plenty of evidence other than the "I-Word" (which was in fact used to summarize evidence proving Brooks to be a flawed authority).

At no point then or now has Mr Death challenged or refuted my characterization of my writing or characterization of his actions there: That s/he had made a false allegation against myself and my comment and had behaved very rudely indeed. Considering that if there was ever a time to do it, it was then, when involved in talks blessed by Septimus Heap, I can only call the lack of response odd.

In fact, for a while after I had made my concluding arguments, was nothing from either Mr Death or Septimus Heap on the discussion. No counter to my portrayal of the incident or the comments, no further elaboration or reasoning, guidance, admissions, apologies, critiques, or even communication. I waited for a couple days in order to account for potential real life commitments that might reasonably slow a response, but at the end of what I felt was a reasonable delay I had still received nothing.

As I mentioned before, I had agreed to do this in order to "sort out" the comments, and I had agreed willingly. However, I am not eternally patient, and have no reason to be. So I wrote an additional comment stating my predicament and my position on it: that the purpose of this conversation was to "sort out" the comment in question, and I was more than willing to do it. But if there was no further "sorting it out" being done, what was the point? So with this in mind I stated that if I did not receive a further reply in a few days, I would assume that the controversial matter was "sorted out", and so I would re-add the edits. It was meant to prompt a reply to clarify my position and tell me whether it was ok or discussions would need to be re-opened (and thus would re-open them).

Almost immediately, I got a reply from Mr Death, who stated that if I removed the I-word in reference to the author, he would not object to it being put up.

Firstly, this is important because it was a roundabout concession that in his opinion the only thing wrong with the comment was "the I-Word." In effect, it was admitting that the allegations he put against me and the comments were false.

Secondly, he did not even attempt a defense against my characterization of his conduct and attitude.

Thirdly: it showed that he had both means and opportunity to write a refutation or opposed evaluation of my comments there. There was no freak power outage or life emergency; he could access the computer, could access the issue in question, and still put forward no other complaints or criticisms of my conduct as a whole, or any other arguments to support his claim that the comments in question were pure bashing.

Fourthly: It was a conditional withdrawal of his original accusation against me and my comments, in effect bringing to end this dispute in a forum sanctioned and overseen by a trusted member of the TV Tropes staff.

It meant that we had fixed the problem, and entered into an agreement blessed and insured by this site's administration.

I gave a polite thanks for the clarification, edited out the (apparently sole) offending characteristic and re-added it. My edits- and the response- were not taken down by Mr Death, Septimus Heap, or anyone else. So I believed that the agreement I had entered into with the administration had worked. As such, I believed that the comment chain in question would now be regarded as being within the rules of TV Tropes and protected against malicious deletion, mischaracterization, or editing as any other legitimate comment would.

Several months of life and rewritting the Useful Notes "War in Europe and Africa" and "The Atomic Bombings" Pages passed, and I would occasionally come back to the World War Z page (and Headscratcher page)to check for replies or saw anything worth discussing.

The latest time I checked, I found the comment chain that had been "worked out" with the oversight and approval of Septimus Heaphad been maliciously deleted by another troper on insufficient grounds (Ie: Vandalism). What was worse was that this vandalism was not dutifully reverted as it should be for an accepted part of the discussion (as I was right to believe the agreement constitutes acceptance of). Furthermore, there had been several other edits made by others that indicated the standards set by the discussion and agreement were not being upheld because they also criticized Brooks in the manner that I did.

In effect, I had entered into the negotiations with the best of faith and upheld my part of the bargain only to find the others not doing so, and the bargain in and of itself obsoleted. Therefore, there is no logical reason why I should continue to adhere to it.

In order to avoid allegations that I was involved in some plot to sneak things in months later, I went to the discussion thread and spoke about my reasons and intent. Then, I took the original forms of the dialogue tree, edited them, and replaced them.

I learned that I was suspended from editing privileges the next day and saw my edits deleted my Mr Death- not even reverted to the agreed upon past consensus- on the false allegation that they were merely "complaining." A line that he has used since the start of this controversy, but which can only be called a lie by the burden of evidence and the overwhelming amount of time he possessed to look over it.

What is more, I asked a friend (who has done nothing more on my behalf on this website; just to clear up any potential rule issues) to look into the discussion thread and see if anything was changed. There was; a post by Mr Death followed by a suspension notice by someone else. The former in particular reeked of what would be inappropriate conduct for any trooper, as well as bad faith.

Here is the contents:

"Mr Death 07:16:03 AM Oct 22nd 2013 history Nope, we were just hoping you'd gotten the picture and would go away. No, the author's "poor conduct" does not "need" to be addressed. Go write a review if you want to complain about him. You don't get to "withdraw compliance" just because a few months passed without someone else adding something they don't agree with. Headscratchers is not for insulting authors."

This is absurd, immoral, and against the rules on several points. For one, he continues to falsely characterize me and the comment chain as just wanting to complain. Secondly, he willfully slanders both myself and my reasons for the withdrawal of compliance on one hand and many other tropers on the other by alleging that not only do I not "get to "withdraw compliance"", but that I am doing it "just because a few months passed without someone else adding something they don't agree with."

The facts that I only withdrew compliance because the agreement was not honored and proved to be a case of selective enforcement at its worst, and that several other tropers had *indeed* "added something they don't agree with" apparently are of no import when in fact they are. And constitute an admission of malicious ignorance on his part.

Thirdly, he states that "Headscratchers is not for insulting authors." This is at best a half-truth. That is not the main goal of Headscratchers, but what *is* is listening things that "make you scratch your head" and then having reasoned, polite discussions and debates about them (within the allowances of the rules) is what it is about. There is a rule against flaming, but flaming is negativity for the sake of negativity without any contribution; and my comments did not fall into that. There is also no rule against disparaging remarks against an author or real person in the context of an appropriate debate. The former is proven by the fact that Mr Death accepted the gist of my edit without the "I-Word" as valid (as shown by the logs), and the latter by numerous other troper contributions on that page that have gone unharassed in spite of like content.

But his first sentence indicates an absolute disregard for the terms of the agreement and for what it means to be a legitimate troper. "Nope, we were just hoping you'd gotten the picture and would go away."

In effect: at least he (and possibly others) appear to admit that they did not hope for reconciliation, an agreement to live-and-let-live, or anything of the sort. That they were willing to disregard the agreement made with the blessing of the Forum herald and ignore vandalism against a contribution that had been tailored to his specifics.

Because "Nope, we were just hoping you'd gotten the picture and would go away."

As a legal friend has digested for me, this combined with the fact that he cites no actual rule that has been violated because there is none. Which in itself is a violation of this site's stated TOS. For whatever my flaws, I am a legitimate troper and have the privilege to be on here as long as I adhere to the rules, and (as I was sure to ask) my conduct does not constitute just cause for this according to the terms of the To S and other rules. This makes this suspension invalid, and both Mr Death and (to a lesser extent) Fighteer (who carried out the suspension) in violation of the To S under which this website operates.

So I am sorry, but as I have been advised this scenario is basic abuse of the TOS and cyberbullying with the attention of having by brute force what could not be done properly.

The truth is that Mr Death had the chance to prove his case in a discussion hosted by none other than Septimus Heap. He failed to do so, and now has resorted to wildly unjustified and disproportionate punishment because he did not or could not make a point when he had every chance to.

I do not pretend to be a saint or an angel. But I know the rules and I know the forms of debate, and I do my very best to avoid attacking my opponent rather than his arguments or (on certain occasions) the subject of the discussion. But I am also not a victim, and to the extent I have failed it is vastly less so than Mr Death has by the conduct here. I am willing to listen, and I am willing to cooperate, make adjustments, and take advice. So even if the "I-word" were in fact verboten, the proper course of action would have been to explain to me what rule it falls under and how (since I have read the To S, try to obey them, and did not see how).

That should have been evident from my willingness to engage with Septimus Heap and Mr Death in the discussion. Instead, Mr Death has sought to have be unjustly suspended.

Which is why- in spite of allegations- the only complaint I am making is the one filed in under these requests. I would like re-institution of my editing privileges, and I would like a final end to this old, god-forsaken affair.

That is why I thank you for your patience in reading this, apologize for its' length, and place my faith and good will in this thread. I hope for a just outcome of this controversy, whatever that may entail.

I do mot claim to be an angel or a saint, nor do I claim that I have nothing to learn. But I have every reason to believe that the root of this suspension is ultimately unjust.

More or less all the evidence can be found on the discussion and history pages of the line I provided above, but if there is anything I can do I would be happy to help (or at least try).

edited 22nd Oct '13 9:48:38 PM by Turtler

The reason I'm asking is because I do have suspicion of what my current suspension is for. However, I don't believe it's a right reason and I can argue against it if that's the case, but because of that, I'd rather not be judgmental on it.

@Deadbeatloser

Thank you for the specifics. I was not aware that rule applied in this manner, and in that case I stil must still ask for guidance, and still believe the suspension amounts to abuse. As I specified above, the rule is against "Bashing" works.

That is not and never was what I was involved in, and that is why I was not (and still am not) certain about the application. The use of the I-word was a brief part (like I said: I added it in as an afterthought if that) of a reasoned response of a then-ongoing debate. In fact, it was part of an argument meant to specifically discredit statements of the author that were being used as a counter-argument.

This was well within keeping with the intent of the rule: to celebrate the works and avoid flaming and bashing without relevance, and it is to keep within the rules of Headscratchers. If we are not allowed to discuss or criticize "works or creators", then a fair part of the Headscratchers page's stated intent ("Sincere questions and Discussing Fridge Logic") is verboten, and several other postings on that very headscratchers page and others that have never been subject of harassment or deletion would be in violation along with my own postings. Which is why I ask you for guidance on this matter here, because while I may have acted in good faith and legitimately not known this was a problem I'd be happy to know how I deal with it in the future. However, it was not and never intended to be a flame or bashing. It was meant to register a valid complaint against the work(s) in question as part of an argument, and to do it in a way that had been done before in that very page without repercussions.

But in any event, I believe that this is still proof that this was the result of a personal vendetta, not an actual or imagined breaking of that rule. As I mentioned before, mine was the only account and comments that faced retaliation in spite of several others directly criticizing the author in the course of their writing. It occurred after numerous cases of harassment by Mr Death, the violation and disregard an agreement made under the aegis of the Forum Herald, and the chronic mis-characterization of my edits and contributions in general.

As I mentioned above, I always am abide by the rules and retract or alter things to fit them when I am shown to be in the wrong. This was proven when I went onto the discussion, and now that I am here. At no point did Mr Death or his associates ever do what you did and specify the exact rule they alleged I was violating and show how.

Instead, he went for a campaign of edit warring (that he in fact initiated, as can be seen from the history logs of the page in question) and then sought to use suspension as a punishment. A club, rather than as it is intended. It was clearly not meant to iron out a small problem, or to make sure I talked to you. It was obviously intended to make me "Go Away," as he himself said.

So at best, this is overkill and selective enforcement of that interpretation against myself specifically, rather than against the contributors of that page as a whole. Even if there is a genuine violation of that rule, I would have been happy to comply and fix it, and it would be no more intense in character than what many other contributors on the forum have done before and since. Other contributions that went unaltered, unnoticed, and unmentioned by him. He didn't enforce it uniformly against posts criticizing Brooks as I did. He simply, punitively went for me and did so in the most unhelpful way possible. I can provide examples if need be.

That is a major part of the reason why I take issue with the cause for suspension. I am willing to learn and correct when I am actually in the wrong; it is why I went to the discussion on the page in question to "sort it out" and why I am here now: because I know I am not an angel or a saint, but I can try and get better. But that does not change the fact that this is a very specific case of unfair selective enforcement (and even bullying), as I described in my withdrawal from the agreement that started this.

If Mr Death were truly that concerned with violations of the rules as my comment apparently is, he would've enforced it against me and everyone else. He would have stuck to the agreement hashed out under the blessings of Septimus Heap in which I tailored the response to meet his criticism. He would not have willingly turned his back on an act of vandalism against the fruits of the agreement that He Himself Accepted. All of these things and more make it impossible for me to consider him as acting in good faith as I hope I myself and you are doing here. Which is why I have that complaint even if there was a violation of the rules that needed fixing in my own contribution.

And since we are legitimately on the subject of TV Tropes Customs, other parts of those include rules one and two. Both of which Mr Death's behavior are violations of. And unlike my own apparent one, I cannot say it was done out of an innocent and happily corrected misunderstanding.

edited 23rd Oct '13 4:01:24 AM by Turtler

While the irony of being in a position to reply to this isn't lost on me, the chance being allowed to do so is lost even less.

I apologize for any apparent attempt to "intimidate" with "paragraphs of pseudo-legalese." That is not and was never my intent; I was simply trying to provide as much information as possible (since it is an odd tic of mine). Unfortunately, it looks like that backfired.

Which is why I'm willing to have the conversation in the way that would work best, and any advice in this (like in anything else) would be much appreciated.

Beyond this, I figure the best way to reply is by chopping up the response.

"This isn't really a difficult case."

If that's the case, there is nobody who is going to be happier about it then I. Even if it involves ruling against me.

"You contested someone removing your edits because you were calling an author an idiot — a plain violation of our rules."

Partially correct or correct with reservations. My objection to Mr Death was not only based a faulty understanding of the rules regarding such forms of address (which I now understand is in violation of them), but also Mr Death's mischaracterization of the rest of the comment as a flame when it was not.

He even admitted as much because he stated removing that word was the only step necessary for it to be agreeable, as came to light in the discussion thread there.

Had he pointed out and explained the rule, I would have recognized like I do now and fixed it.

"You then came back later and announced that you'd won the argument because the other person hadn't posted in a while.This is being a dick."

I am not sure what this is a reference to, because it sounds like it could be one of two things. But in any event, the substance of it is incorrect.

The first is my "anybody there?" That came after I had attended the discussion Septimus Heap had sponsored, made my points, and received no response for what I thought was a reasonable amount of time (IE: Days). This naturally concerned me, so I posted a reply meant to clarify it. Or if all else failed, for when I would restore the edit on a preliminary basis (on the theory that it was "good enough" to not be urgent) and which could be taken down and fixed whenever the others returned to resume the discussion.

This I still believe was a reasonable action on my part: I joined the discussion on good faith and I wanted to fix the problems and learn whatever I could for it, but how could I improve without feedback?

The second is the decision to revoke my agreement to it. First and foremost: I now know it was wrong and if I had known what I know now I would not have done it. But even then this wasn't based on some sort of "nobody responded! Therefore I win!" Logic. There was no argument or anything to be won; there was only a closed discussion because I believed Mr Death and I had come to an agreement with Septimus Heap's blessing. Which meant that the discussion had run its' course and been finished.

What the revocation was a response to was what I perceived to be the lack of enforcement of the agreement's terms. A vandal had deleted the "appropriate" version of the comment chain that Mr Death had accepted, and there were several other comments on Headscratchers criticizing Brooks (and on other HS pages other subjects) in ways I believed were similar to mine without any sort of response or policing. So from my perspective, the agreement appeared obsolete.

I did not realize that my post's use of the I-word was a major enough difference in substance from those others on that page, and I did not realize that the other comments of that nature on other pages might be in violation of the rules themselves. At the time that made it seem like the other side of the agreement had been broken.

Now I know better. I know that the revocation was the wrong action to take, and that I should have done otherwise (for instance, than simply reverting the vandal's deletion to the agreed form Mr Death and I had reached). While I do think the response was less than optimal and counterproductive (this is of far more help than the discussion there ever was), I know that isn't an excuse and it was still an offense.

However, neither of these fit what you ascribe to me. I'm well aware (thanks to basic debating and logic) that a lack or delayed response does not mean the last thing said is automatically what "Wins" or is right. Which is why I believe your characterization of them is wrong.

"Third, you came here and started mouthing off like a first year law student contesting a traffic ticket."

That is true, and I apologize. However, it stemmed from a different reason than the one you believed was apparent (an attempted intimidation).

I just think that when in doubt, more information tends to be better; it is a part of my personality. Which is part of the reason why even in my personal life I tend to seek out second and third opinions (hence why I showed the issue to a couple of my legal friends to ask for advice).

I know that this approach isn't appropriate for everything and I can adapt well when I know, but when this issue came up I sort of panicked and fell back on instinct: trying to present it in as much detail as possible.

To use your allusion, you saw this as a mouthy, arrogant first year law student trying to shout down and intimidate traffic court. The stuttering, uneasy first year law student tripping on his words and going on would be the reality.

"All this adds up to the fact that you won't be coming back."

Well, I would hope not. Like I said: I'm willing to listen and learn, and I already have learned plenty in these posts.

If that is the way things pan out, I will accept them. But I know that I can do better.

Pardon me for asking, but I have a few more technical issues to make.

Firstly: I sent off my final appeal e-mail (so that might be the cause), but while I was updating my Firefox and when it restarted I had access to the same abilities I had under the suspension (Mailbox, ability to write on here, etc). If this wasn't intended and is subverting the ban, *I didn't do it intentionally.*

Secondly: is there anyway I can edit or delete a post on here while under suspension? Looking at the latest post in context makes me feel it needs more trimming, but when I try to edit it doesn't allow me, and it doesn't seem like I can delete it.

If you guys and girls would prefer, I'd be happy to have one of you delete the previous post so I can edit it further.

Thanks.

Double post.

edited 23rd Oct '13 10:35:47 AM by Willbyr

Where to begin?

Yeah, I made a bad edit on one of the pages. I used the phrase "a little bit subverted" which I know is supposed to be bad editing procedure, but I forgot. I'm sorry about that. But so what? It could have been fixed in only a few seconds by just deleting the words "a little bit."

But you know what? If they didn't want to be bothered to fix it... well, first off that's kind of selfish. Being a part of a community means accepting responsibility for that community, like I do. If I see an error I try to fix it, and I only delete it if it absolutely can not be fixed. I was under the impression that was what we were supposed to do.

But that aside, if he didn't want to be bothered, he could have brought it to my attention in a normal, non-petty way. If he had done that then I would have said "oh, my bad, I forgot the rule" and fixed it and it would be over.

Instead, he chose to delete the whole thing as part of some childish "lesson" and then, when I asked him to handle it better in the future he responded by laughing, talking down to me like I'm some sort of pants-shitting toddler, and telling me that I "made his week" by thinking I had the right to ask him to behave like a reasonable human being.

Look, I understand that people have busy schedules, but there are times when that argument just doesn't cut it. My edit was bad, I admit that, but fixing it would seriously have taken only a few seconds. Deleting it instead might have saved the guy one or two seconds, tops. If he doesn't have one or two seconds, then how is he even managing to be here? It also doesn't excuse his bad attitude.

Aside from the rudeness, though, the main reason this made me so angry is that lately I've been seeing a LOT of honestly lazy edits like this. On one page (I've forgotten which one, but I did fix it myself) one sub-bullet of a totally valid example got vandalized, and rather than repairing it or even asking for a reversion, the editor simply deleted the entire thing, even the parts that hadn't been vandalized. There's absolutely no excuse for that. You can't say you're too busy, or anything else. It's just laziness.

So if I came across as stubborn or angry it's only because I'm trying to drill this point into peoples' heads. Being a part of a community means accepting responsibility for it, fixing problems, and trying to make things better instead of worse. If someone can't manage to take a few extra minutes out of his day to do that then I'm sorry, but I feel like that person clearly just doesn't care enough about the community to be a part of it.

Oh well, I guess I can just hope that everyone are just busy with all these lengthy issues.