Note: The thread currently has a limit of one post every two hours for non-mod users. Currently, this is hard-coded by the admins, but there are plans to give mods the ability to toggle it without admin intervention. After mods are given the ability to do that, the time limit may be further reduced or removed entirely.
This thread is for discussing the following topics:
- Questions and clarifications about the site's rules and policies pertaining to wiki editing, forum posting, trope launching, and so on.
- If you have an idea for a thread on another part of the forums but aren't sure if creating it would be allowed, feel free to ask here.
This thread is not for any of the following:
- Reporting complaints or concerns about specific moderation decisions (e.g. suspensions and thumps). Report these directly to the admins via the contact form
. Selecting "The Staff" sends your message to the admins only, without making it visible to moderators.
- Queries about thumps applied to your own forum posts, including contesting the validity of a thump. Reply to the relevant moderator via PM for these matters.
- Ban appeals (use the "Edit Banned" thread
in this forum).
- Reporting problems or requesting moderator action in the wiki or forums (use Ask The Tropers or Hollersnote or specialized threads such as "Locked Pages"
).
- Queries about locked On-Topic Conversations (OTC) threads or banned discussion topics. OTC has its own moderation discussion thread here
, and the latest statement on the locked US Politics thread
and other banned OTC topics is here
. Bluntly, when certain OTC threads and topics have repeatedly caused problems, we're not going to provide forum space to discuss them again until the moderation toolkit is equipped to handle those conversations.
- Cut List challenges and queries (they have their own thread here
).
- Requests for changes to the site's code or discussion about such changes, as mods cannot change the code; only the admins can do that. Please direct tech requests to Query Bugs or Tech Wishlist (for bug reports and suggestions for feature additions/changes, respectively), and take other tech-related discussion to the Changelog thread
.
- Crowner actions. Please use the holler function instead.
- Discussion about changing or implementing policies. Please use Wiki Talk for that. (Asking whether it's OK to make a specific thread is acceptable; using this thread in place of such a thread is not.)
- Asking about the whereabouts of inactive mods (or other inactive users) before they return, if they return at all. Use the Absent people thread
for discussing inactive users.
Posts that use this thread in place of the sections listed in the bulleted list above are off-topic.
We're aware that the Edit Banned thread has a Non-Indicative Name, due to it also covering non-editing suspensions. We're not sure whether the name for that thread can even be edited without breaking the special coding that keeps posting restricted to mods and suspended users, so we're leaving it alone for now, because better safe than sorry.
(Edited Mar 28 2024, adding bullet about OTC and amending layout a little)
Edited by GastonRabbit on Oct 11th 2024 at 3:20:25 AM
Alleged Number1KirbyFan
Back to the discussion, I think two purposes are being conflated here. It's been pointed out that the evader reports are to warn ban evaders about getting caught, and it can be used to warn editors about ban evaders.
In theory, mentioning the username of the ban evader is to warn editors, but this would be unnecessary to warn banned editors, since they just need to know ban evaders are being caught. This means the two could be handled separately, since the editors don't need to read through most of the stuff in Edit Banned.
I agree that BERT is excessive, but if it's a problem in BERT then I don't see why it wouldn't be a problem in Edit Banned.
Since most of this is speculative, it might be worth moving on from this point.
edit: Ninja'd. This was mostly just a response to WarJay, so hopefully this isn't distracting.
Edited by N1KF on Jan 4th 2022 at 5:55:11 AM
Honestly the majority of ban evaders I see get caught in Edit Banned seem less like malicious attention-seeking trolls and more like they're completely clueless and just want to continue making bad edits without caring about the rules. The difference is that trolls break the rules on purpose, not out of foolishness.
I don't think anonymously announcing ban evaders makes sense because, like... what's the point? You just say "We got a ban evader!" every time, and what do the rest of us say in response? "Good for you"? Naming ban evaders actually has a purpose, at least, since it keeps us alert for their suspicious future activity and recruits people to clean up bad edits, but if we can't do that, then it's better to just not publicly mention it at all.
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.So to focus back, I always took the ‘call-out’ posts to be more a public service announcement (and probably internal mod note) on why a person mid-appeal (or banned for something normally appealed) wasn’t going to be posting anymore.
I figured that it was so nosey shits like me weren’t left wondering what happened to Y’s appeal, when what happened was they got busted for ban-evading and permabanned.
Edited by Silasw on Jan 4th 2022 at 11:56:40 AM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranNot to mention that a lot of people do read through Edit Banned. I follow that thread very closely, not just for evasion reports but to keep track of wiki issues in general. The mods know they have an audience beyond the banned tropers.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall
I read so I can find out what happens to tropers who get suspended through ATT, and sometimes in case tropers I recognize get suspended and I can find out why/whether or not they get set free.
...Maybe not the best reasons to read it admittedly.
Works That Require Cleanup of Complaining | Troper WallI just like drama, it’s like a free reality TV show sometimes.
I admit I sometimes I read it for Pass the Popcorn purposes. I do feel there are strengths and weaknesses to keeping it open. While I could see popcorn gallerying to be a downside, I do feel it serves a purpose in that it explains why someone is banned and how they can fix it. Ultimately I feel the benefits outweigh the downsides.
Edited by jjjj2 on Jan 4th 2022 at 7:29:17 AM
You can only write so much in your forum signature. It's not fair that I want to write a piece of writing yet it will cut me off in the midFor me it's a mix of popcorn and keeping a bead on what issues are important to keep an eye on (either to make sure I don't do them myself or keep an eye on the wiki in general)
I sincerely feel I've learned more about the rules reading edit banned than the actual rules.
Edited by sgamer82 on Jan 4th 2022 at 4:21:22 AM
Alleged Number1KirbyFan
If that's the case, maybe the rules should be rewritten to put more focus on reasons people actually get banned.
That, or it's just more effective to see examples of a rule than to see the rules themselves written out.
Edited by N1KF on Jan 4th 2022 at 6:30:49 AM
For me in particular, the call-outs for ban evaders in the Edit Banned topic serve two purposes:
- To let the community (and other mods) know why a particular conversation ended so someone doesn't ask later, "Hey, why didn't you respond to that troper?"
- To let the user in question know if they log in afterwards and read the conversation.
Notably, if someone ban evades while suspended and we detect it, there won't be any edits to remove, since we catch that at registration.
If someone is running around undoing edits made by the original account of someone who later ban evades, that is absolutely wrong and should be stopped.
Edited by Fighteer on Jan 4th 2022 at 7:31:11 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I thought you couldn't log in if you're bounced. My understanding you can view the site, but you can't log in.
You can only write so much in your forum signature. It's not fair that I want to write a piece of writing yet it will cut me off in the midYou can still view threads. The bounce flag is supposed to allow you to log in but prevent any editing. You're in read-only mode.
Edited by Fighteer on Jan 4th 2022 at 7:44:43 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Okay then could you explain something to me. A lot of times I see the mods saying someone is bounced but beforehand they had all there tools turned off anyhow. What can you do when you're not bounced when all your editing tools are turned off that you can't otherwise?
You can only write so much in your forum signature. It's not fair that I want to write a piece of writing yet it will cut me off in the midWell, non-bounced users can post on Edit Banned, for one thing.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallThis is true, it's just I remember one time a user was threatened with that by saying if they posted in the edit banned thread one more time they were gonna get bounced, which I felt was kinda pointless. You might as well bounce them at that point. This is probably getting too backseat moddy, so I think all my questions have been answered.
Edited by jjjj2 on Jan 4th 2022 at 7:52:46 AM
You can only write so much in your forum signature. It's not fair that I want to write a piece of writing yet it will cut me off in the midI think the bounce function was only recently changed- I'm pretty sure it used to redirect people to Google.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallThe initial function of the "bounce" setting was to redirect users to Google, and it was done via a php script instead of via a flag we set on the account. Later, it was changed to log the user out and prevent them from logging back in; this is also when it was added to the mod controls. Now it's supposed to simply block any editing or posting.
The justification for the flag has similarly evolved over time. When Eddie wielded it, it was a straight-up punishment. "Y'all done fucked up, you are barred from our site, go find something else to do." Now we use it as a final state. "You've exhausted all possible appeals and we won't consider any further ones."
As noted, a user who is fully suspended (all the boxes checked) can still post in the Edit Banned thread. The bounce flag eliminates that avenue of appeal, and is used in three main cases: (a) Someone continues to harass us after their appeal is denied; (b) Someone commits a secondary offense like ban evasion; (c) Someone acts in such an egregious manner that we will not offer an appeal.
Bounced individuals can still use our contact form to reach us, of course. We don't usually apply any blocks on that except for spam prevention.
Edited by Fighteer on Jan 4th 2022 at 8:04:35 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"^^^Usually they do the "Don't post here anymore or else you're getting permabanned" thing because they've been given instruction as to what to do (normally go to the GHWE thread and get their edits looked at) and they're not listening.
That's in most cases the final straw and if you're not going to follow their instructions at that point, then they get the boot.
A lot of What An Idiot subpages were added to the cut list with the stated reason "What An Idiot is now Flame Bait". These cuts were done unilaterally without consulting the TRS thread, so they should be declined so we can do a proper cleanup.
Alleged Number1KirbyFan
Wow, the cutlist is pretty flawed. Maybe there could be a citation form for it, where you can put in a link to help support the cut. This could also work for the custom WikiWord tool, since it seems to cause confusion like every week.
Or an automated message added to any page that you cutlist?
Not sure if that's able to be coded but it's an idea...
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.Or mods paging the users if the cut reason doesn't sound sufficient.
TroperWall / WikiMagic CleanupAnd since this isn't the first time someone's unilaterally tried to take a "slash-and-burn" approach to cleanup, maybe we should have a rule to discourage that sort of thing.

This is not entirely false.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"