TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Wiki and Forum Policy - General Discussion

Go To

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

CardboardBot from Saudi Arabia (Life not ruined yet) Relationship Status: Drift compatible
#5201: Nov 22nd 2022 at 6:28:54 AM

I'm pretty sure I've read in an EB post that an edit war begins at the third edit, when someone reverts the revert.

Checking in on this account after leaving the site, MAN that is a cringy forum post history. Daaamn. Never again.
AlleyOop Since: Oct, 2010
#5202: Nov 22nd 2022 at 6:30:02 AM

For edit wars, is a person adding an entry, a second person making an addition that constitutes vandalism/bad etiquette, and the first person removing that addition with due cause considered OK? Do they need to ask a third person to remove the vandalism or Natter to avoid being an edit war?

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#5203: Nov 22nd 2022 at 6:32:06 AM

Edit War makes an exception for changing edits to be in line with wiki policy, with the caveat that if someone is edit warring over it that should be dealt with first or else the edit war will just continue. It's also never a bad idea to get consensus/an okay first, to avoid that specific issue but it's not strictly necessary by my understanding.

Edited by sgamer82 on Nov 22nd 2022 at 6:34:04 AM

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#5204: Nov 22nd 2022 at 7:02:20 AM

  1. A makes an edit.
  2. B changes that edit.
  3. A makes the edit (or substantially similar) again.

3 is the edit war. I'm not sure how this is unclear.

Edited by Fighteer on Nov 22nd 2022 at 10:02:44 AM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Amonimus the "Retromancer" from <<|Wiki Talk|>> (Sergeant) Relationship Status: In another castle
the "Retromancer"
#5205: Nov 22nd 2022 at 7:05:57 AM

  1. A makes an edit.
  2. B changes that edit.
  3. C changes the edit back to A's.

I've been told it's also an edit war.

TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#5206: Nov 22nd 2022 at 7:13:24 AM

The problem there is establishing intent on C's part. We presume that A is aware of their actions because they made the original edit and have a responsibility to check the history. C can't necessarily be held to the same standard.

What B ought to do in this situation is bring the matter to Ask The Tropers for arbitration.

Edited by Fighteer on Nov 22nd 2022 at 10:14:00 AM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Amonimus the "Retromancer" from <<|Wiki Talk|>> (Sergeant) Relationship Status: In another castle
the "Retromancer"
#5207: Nov 22nd 2022 at 7:18:47 AM

What parties need to do is not what I've asked.

  1. A adds an example.
  2. B rewrites the example.
  3. C removes the example.
  4. D re-adds the original example.
In this case, crazysamaritan and 𝕋𝕒𝕓𝕤 say with Edit 4 the "Edit War" is already in effect. Is the terminology correct?

Edited by Amonimus on Nov 22nd 2022 at 6:19:57 PM

TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#5208: Nov 22nd 2022 at 7:24:36 AM

I think in that case it's because there's several parties adding and removing.

In the example [up][up][up] C's readd could just be a coincidence, but if A, B, C , and D are all doing it, even if it's not an Edit War there's clearly an issue

crazysamaritan NaNo 4328 / 50,000 from Lupin III Since: Apr, 2010
NaNo 4328 / 50,000
#5209: Nov 22nd 2022 at 7:34:11 AM

It is easier to see the problem when removing the extraneous information:

  1. add an example.
  2. remove the example.
  3. re-add the original example.

Edit War says "However, if A adds/deletes something, B removes/restores it, but it's C that changes it back, no one is considered guilty, but it should still be taken to an appropriate venue. The third edit in the chain is the threshold [...]"

Calling it "contested" is perfectly fine. The most important detail at that stage is that discussion needs to occur. That's why, in cases of immediate self-reporting, we tend not to suspend. The guilty parties are already trying to create discussion.

The first paragraph of the policy states the following:

If those involved are sufficiently incensed over an issue, this may lead to a cycle of posts, cancellations, counter-cancellations, re-posts, etc. In extreme cases, it may lead to Flame Wars, Thread Mode posting, or even retaliatory Wiki Vandalism. If these problems become too unmanageable, it may be necessary to lock the page.

That is the outcome which we are trying to avoid by bringing the edit to discussion. Note that the problematic cycle exists independently of whether anyone is individually violating the "do not re-add your own edit" rule. Many of the Locked Pages are on that list because of these "contested edit" situations being too common. By forcing edits to go through moderation, it makes contested edits more likely to be discussed than they are to turn into edit wars.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.
Amonimus the "Retromancer" from <<|Wiki Talk|>> (Sergeant) Relationship Status: In another castle
the "Retromancer"
#5210: Nov 22nd 2022 at 7:39:22 AM

Is it fine calling it "edit war" when nobody re-added own edit or not?

TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup
crazysamaritan NaNo 4328 / 50,000 from Lupin III Since: Apr, 2010
NaNo 4328 / 50,000
#5211: Nov 22nd 2022 at 8:02:35 AM

a cycle of posts, cancellations, counter-cancellations, re-posts, etc.

The third edit is an edit war; it has begun a cycle of posts, cancellations, counter-cancellations, re-posts, etc.

It doesn't matter if you call it a "contested edit" instead, so long as you take it to discussion to resolve the cycle with consensus. The objective here is getting folks to stop/prevent the re-editing cycle and discuss the edit.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.
Amonimus the "Retromancer" from <<|Wiki Talk|>> (Sergeant) Relationship Status: In another castle
the "Retromancer"
#5212: Nov 22nd 2022 at 8:11:01 AM

All I wanted to hear is that it doesn't have to be by the same editor to count.

Next, does "edit warring" also refer to a third edit, or it specifically has to be by the same editor?

TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup
WarJay77 It's NaNo, Bay-beeee! (8,356/50,000) from My Writing Cave (Troper Knight) Relationship Status: Armed with the Power of Love
It's NaNo, Bay-beeee! (8,356/50,000)
#5213: Nov 22nd 2022 at 12:44:48 PM

See, that "third edit" thing is where we all got stumped at the Outdated Pages thread; most of us had never heard of such a definition before, and it seems to clash with what we were always taught an Edit War was. It's bizarre to lump both versions under the same term, because that only leads to confusion over which cases are suspension-worthy, which aren't, and in general if all editing disputes are technically "edit wars" or not.

Part of the reason I'm troubled about this is that it's common for people to ask if someone else can re-delete misuse another troper re-added so that they're not edit warring. If any "add, delete, add" cycle counts, then technically this means that even in this scenario, people are edit warring. I know there's the "just following the rules" clause, but in this sort of scenario has always been a gray area (whether or not removing a misused example counts as following the rules, or if it should always be discussed regardless of how obvious the misuse is).

Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall
Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#5214: Nov 22nd 2022 at 12:46:48 PM

I think it was mentioned above the rules have an explicit clause about being allowed to revert vandalism without consequences.

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
Amonimus the "Retromancer" from <<|Wiki Talk|>> (Sergeant) Relationship Status: In another castle
the "Retromancer"
#5215: Nov 22nd 2022 at 12:50:19 PM

I've mostly concerned that as an ATT regular, I and many others have been calling "Edit War" and "Editwarring" one thing when it was now revealed that it means something else. I'm not currently interested in how to avoid or resolve them because that part has been unambiguous.

TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup
WarJay77 It's NaNo, Bay-beeee! (8,356/50,000) from My Writing Cave (Troper Knight) Relationship Status: Armed with the Power of Love
It's NaNo, Bay-beeee! (8,356/50,000)
#5216: Nov 22nd 2022 at 12:54:43 PM

[up]Yeah, that's the issue at hand; everyone has always been under the impression that an "Edit War" is a very specific thing, and changing the definition will only create confusion.

[up][up]It's not necessarily "vandalism" just to restore a misused example. Vandalism is like blanking a page or undoing important markup or something, not just misunderstanding a trope.

Edited by WarJay77 on Nov 22nd 2022 at 3:55:17 PM

Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall
Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#5217: Nov 22nd 2022 at 1:00:49 PM

So we're generally in agreement about expanding the "link, discuss" rule?

You think giving some of the threads where this occurs often a heads up would be a good idea? There's quite a few people who don't regularly check for rule changes and probably aren't aware that what they've been doing is now firmly a no-no.

Amonimus the "Retromancer" from <<|Wiki Talk|>> (Sergeant) Relationship Status: In another castle
the "Retromancer"
#5218: Nov 22nd 2022 at 1:02:08 PM

[up] Feel free to share the news if you know such threads. Maybe a Bulletin or Newsletter can bring this up.

Edited by Amonimus on Nov 22nd 2022 at 12:02:30 PM

TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup
Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#5219: Nov 22nd 2022 at 1:02:27 PM

I think it should only be called an edit war after trying to contact the reverter and not being able to clear up why the edit was made. At that point, the reverting is clearly done with intent rather than from misunderstanding.

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
ChloeJessica Since: Jun, 2020 Relationship Status: Awaiting my mail-order bride
#5220: Nov 22nd 2022 at 6:51:52 PM

why were all the Goncharov subpage cut requests declined with no reasoning given? JFF pages don't get subpages. they never have. why does this page get to be an exception to the rules?

WarJay77 It's NaNo, Bay-beeee! (8,356/50,000) from My Writing Cave (Troper Knight) Relationship Status: Armed with the Power of Love
It's NaNo, Bay-beeee! (8,356/50,000)
#5221: Nov 22nd 2022 at 6:53:26 PM

I wonder if it's due to the debate about if the page "belongs" in JFF or not.

Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall
ChloeJessica Since: Jun, 2020 Relationship Status: Awaiting my mail-order bride
#5222: Nov 22nd 2022 at 6:56:58 PM

again, it cannot be troped as if it were a real film on any page other than the JFF page. it must be troped as the collaborative fiction project that it is if it is troped at all. the current subpages aren't doing that. hell, it's got a fucking Referenced by… page that's nothing but lies.

i am genuinely upset that this thing is being allowed to break the rules.

WarJay77 It's NaNo, Bay-beeee! (8,356/50,000) from My Writing Cave (Troper Knight) Relationship Status: Armed with the Power of Love
It's NaNo, Bay-beeee! (8,356/50,000)
#5223: Nov 22nd 2022 at 6:59:10 PM

I'm not disagreeing, I'm just trying to figure out an answer to this question.

Are we sure the pages were declined and not just instantly remade?

Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall
ChloeJessica Since: Jun, 2020 Relationship Status: Awaiting my mail-order bride
#5224: Nov 22nd 2022 at 6:59:50 PM

yes. i checked the cutlist history.

WarJay77 It's NaNo, Bay-beeee! (8,356/50,000) from My Writing Cave (Troper Knight) Relationship Status: Armed with the Power of Love
It's NaNo, Bay-beeee! (8,356/50,000)
#5225: Nov 22nd 2022 at 7:03:04 PM

Yeah, I just checked as well. (Not because I doubted you; I just got curious, checked, realized you were right, and came back to see that you'd already posted 5 minutes ago)

This is indeed a pickle.

Edited by WarJay77 on Nov 22nd 2022 at 10:03:41 AM

Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall

Total posts: 10,940
Top