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 spam the thread about your appeal, 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 GastonRabbit on Apr 30th 2025 at 11:56:51 AM
The comment that we suspended you for was the one where you linked to another site to highlight that they thought the person who wrote the review you were commenting on was a sockpuppet. The review - and the associated comments - have indeed since been removed.
As I told you in the PM you mentioned, bringing stuff in from other sites violates the rule against drama importation.
edited 7th Oct '13 8:41:34 AM by BestOf
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.I figured it was that particular review that was causing the issue. I accept that I was wrong to have brought external sites into the mix and should not have done so. In your emails to me, you outlined the proper procedure on how to handle any further incidents like this, and I’ll be sure to follow it. It is a bit of a minefield sometimes to know what is and is not acceptable here, but I’ll go the route of the “Ask the Tropers” discussion if I end up in a situation that I am unsure of how to handle, rather than going a bit nuts. Once again, I am truly sorry for the drama in which I participated and would like the chance to post once more.
@Fighteer I understand completely. The drama had cooled down in the places I usually visit but that doesn't mean it's the same everywhere. Communication is key with touchy subjects.
@Voltra: Indeed, it is. I'll release your suspension now that we're clear on the rules.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I was recently banned, apparently, for a minor first-time infraction. I am aware of the rule I broke and will refrain from that action in the future. What is the term of my suspension? Thanks.
edited 8th Oct '13 5:09:02 PM by MountainMan
You could elaborate, possibly, on what rule you broke and why.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@Subspinipes: We'll restore your privileges to the reviews section. It seems to be the only place you hang out, though. Consider branching out a bit more. It's easy to develop a myopic idea of what we're about — and miss out on some of our key rules — when you only use one part of the site.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"So I'm almost 100% sure that my suspension was due to my actions on the Wallbangers DC page. I thought I tried to leave answers to explain my editing, because I wasn't trying to troll or anything.
I am sorry that I ended up getting into an edit war, that wasn't my intention.
@LittleRedHen: We've noticed that you don't seem to understand the idea of YMMV on our wiki. It's about documenting opinions and audience reactions, and by its very nature, these cannot be "wrong".
It is not acceptable to delete these kinds of examples because you don't agree with them. It is only acceptable to remove (or modify) them if they contain factual errors or don't fit the definition of the trope.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The "Captain Marvel identity" example did contain factual errors, at least as I saw them. The time in which the two works suggest that this was a period of time that people didn't even know that Captain Marvel transformed back into a mortal, let alone a child. I saw it as highly plausible that people, Batman included, would be caught off guard whenever they saw Billy in Cap's place. I don't get how Clayface would prepare Batman for "boy transforms into superpowered adult" either.
As for Lady Shiva, the real issue I had was with the last bullet point, since it largely complains that they changed Shiva and now she sucks and comparing the two, rather than talking about any real Wallbanger she did in said story. The last bit "This is, frankly, a terrible use of an awesome character, and ruins what should be her first big introduction to the D Cn U. If this is what they're pitching, it's no wonder they're so hesitant to reintroduce Wally, Donna, Steph, and Cass." is just inflammatory to be such. The other points that talk about the violations of Show, Don't Tell are largely valid.
It's just hard to argue when you can't make Justifying Edits or on-page rebuttals.
It's been so long I forgot what I did to be suspended. Please unsuspend me. I would like to edit the Battle for Dream Island pages since I'm a fan of that show
@LittleRedHen: That's the point. Don't argue. People are entitled to their opinions. You may not remove examples on Wallbangers pages because you don't agree with them. Don't talk to them, don't contest them, don't "disprove" them. Leave them alone — people who devote their time to hating things are already pathetic enough without engaging them in a fight.
@LeilanaLappy: It has been a while. So long that the history of what you did to get suspended has vanished. The note isn't very helpful either. I'm going to investigate and get back to you.
edited 9th Oct '13 7:41:28 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Hello, I am confused as to why I have I been suspended. The notes said to come here and ask, so here I am. Willing to discuss or work out any disagreements, thanks!
"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Attributed to VoltaireI guess I'm just used to talking about stuff like on the Headscratchers pages on stuff. I'll try to avoid this in the future.
So how long is my ban going to be?
"You could elaborate, possibly, on what rule you broke and why."
Oh, I assumed moderators had access to that information. I broke the rule against conversational additions to a page since I made a corrective entry that addressed the previous submitter instead of simply altering and/or adding additional information to their entry, which apparently would have been the correct course of action.
Why did I break the rule? Well, it wasn't malicious. I was under the impression that tvtropes was a more informal site than the other Wiki, and I've seen similar entries in the past without realizing that they, in fact, violated the rules.
I will strive to make future submissions more formal and will correct existing entries instead of commenting on them.
Here is the page in question:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.CouldntFindAPen
edited 10th Oct '13 5:25:02 AM by MountainMan
Nope. You were banned for soapboxing on Metaphorically True.
The reason we ask is to make sure you understand why you were banned.
"Yup. That tasted purple."@Kaijo: Based on posts you made on various Nanoha related topics, plus other evidence, we believe that you are a sockpuppet of a user who was banned for making personal attacks and threatening the wiki over a Single-Issue Wonk related to "child sexualization". Your ability to post in this thread was left open to give you an opportunity to explain yourself.
@LittleRedHen: Technically, Headscratchers pages aren't supposed to be like forums either; we just haven't put in much effort to enforce it. As long as an article is in a wiki format, it should be treated like a wiki article, not a conversation. That said, the rules are different between Headscratchers and Wallbangers. Since we're clear on that, I'll lift the suspension.
@MountainMan: I wanted to see if you knew why you were suspended. As DBL said, you joined in on the horrific mess of Thread Mode that was the Metaphorically True article and added politically motivated counterarguments. That's not acceptable. The wiki does not officially endorse any political points of view, and having those arguments in the articles is a violation of both Conversation In The Main Page and the Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgement.
I took a chainsaw to the article and there may be some more coming, as many of those examples are either shoehorned or likely Flame Bait.
Regardless, the point is that, no matter what your point of view on a political topic, keep it off the wiki.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Deadbeatloser: "Nope. You were banned for soapboxing on Metaphorically True.
"The reason we ask is to make sure you understand why you were banned."
Hmmm... I wasn't aware of that since I was only alerted through PM about the infraction I mentioned, and I assumed that's why I was banned.
Fighteer: "Regardless, the point is that, no matter what your point of view on a political topic, keep it off the wiki."
Seems the only way to really enforce this rule is to prohibit any mention of politics whatsoever.
You may have gotten a PM, but if so, I wasn't the one who sent it. Notice of a suspension is given when you try to do the thing you were suspended from.
We don't ban politics entirely, because politics can sometimes offer some amusing examples. That said, the emphasis needs to be on the example, not the politics. The questions to ask are, roughly in order: "Is it factually an example?", "Is it likely to get people upset?", "Is it witty and/or entertaining?"
Regardless, arguing with an example is absolutely forbidden, always.
edited 10th Oct '13 9:08:27 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@Fighteer: Well, not sure on sockpuppet or threatening anyone; it's not like one can really threaten anyone online, so I don't see the point. I post a lot of fanfiction on this name(Kaijo), as well as use it in various other locations. In the Nanoha fandom, I am known as Kaijo. I've never really seen a need for a sockpuppet, as I know I can be contentious sometimes and I generally don't feel the need to censor my opinions. I am who I am.
As far as the Nanoha boards go, when I joined awhile ago, I watched for quite awhile as I do on new forums, to get a feel for how things go. I saw arguments and personal attacks come and go, without much moderation, so I figured things were lax here. I enjoy a good debate, so eventually got into a few myself, but found myself thumped. I will admit I do get into it a bit too much sometimes, as that has been the situation in most other forums I participate in like Slashdot. My attempts at trying to communicate via P Ms never saw any responses (except for you, just recently) so I was left confused; why were my posts thumped, while others weren't? I even tried not responding to flamebait and instead reported posts that made personal attacks and were trolling (including one where a guy basically admitted he trolled and mocked for fun), but nothing ever happened to them. After that, I tried being civil, but I admit I probably crossed some lines occasionally and let people get to me. When attacked, I tend to want to defend myself. However, being an aspie, it's sometimes hard to see those lines. Also, the selective nature of enforcement and the repeated supposed rule violations that went undealt with despite reporting, left me confused. I suppose it is up to moderator discretion, but if personal attacks and flamingbaiting/trolling are allowed by some, it makes things unfriendly for new folks. Not sure whether this was oversight or what, though.
None of this is an excuse, just an explanation, as per what you wanted. I fully admit I probably went overboard a few times, and my own role in the debates and arguments that occurred. Asperger's has made it a bit difficult to see the subtle societal lines and mores that are set, and thus I understand I can come across as too blunt and gruff and rude. Again, not an excuse; it is up to me to work on this. From now on, though, I suppose I'll just avoid responding to those that troll and bait at all. And if another argument comes up, I can invite people to debate me in P Ms or a different site, rather than on here, just to save everyone else a potential headache.
"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Attributed to VoltaireHere's the thing, unless you have a split personality who posts on the same computer, I'm not seeing how you can pretend not to be wildwings as well.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Is that the person? I'm not sure I understand what's going on, but I've only really used this computer. Unless someone has hopped onto my wifi, or proxied into my connection via malware. I never did change from the default password, but I suppose I should have done that. If you honestly believe that to be the case, then I'd ask you to ban wildwings and I'll get some security scanning on my computer and see if I picked up some control malware somewhere. But Kaijo is the only tvtropes account that I've had on this computer as far as I know. I leave him logged in.
"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Attributed to VoltaireI didn't receive a suspension notice, but I am suspended from posting. It's in the "What To Do If You Are Suspended" page that if I ever want to post again, I need to post in this thread. So I am.
I know what the reason is: Because of an Edit War (or a semi-Edit War, as I took the entry to YMMV).
Another troper was removing my addition that Saul on Series/Homeland had undergone a Face–Heel Turn in Season 3. Saul was probably the most admirable character in the first two seasons, and while any show needs conflict I'm not thrilled that they decided to make him an antagonist in Season 3. I also don't claim he's become a monster. He's become one of the softer types of Anti-Villain, in my view. He may not even stay that way.
However this other troper, who as far as I know has seniority on me but NOT rank (he is not a Mod that I know of) seemed to expect me to accept his edits as final. I PM'd him (or her— I can't know the person's gender but for convenience I'll use male pronouns as necessary). He did not PM me back. I used the discussion page. He did not discuss. He just wanted me to accept him as the authority who must be heeded, whereas if he is even a Mod, I don't know he is.
He did in an edit comment threaten to bring Mods in. That was one reason I moved it to the YMMV page, which it says in the title is for what some people see in a work. By definition, it allows disputed entries.
I wouldn't have even thought to add the trope to the page if someone else hadn't added it before. I thought it was too soon to tell when it was added. Hating to delete another troper's entry, I modified it, saying among other things it was too soon to tell. I actually agreed when another troper deleted it, saying "If it's too soon to tell, don't list it."
Then, Episode 2 happened and I thought it was clear at that point.
I ended up edit-warring because the other troper in the edit war wouldn't discuss or explain anything, just acting like he knew more than me, period. If there is a policy I violated, I was not directed to it. It should not be regarded as Serious Business like defaming a living person on The Other Wiki would be, as at worst I was libeling a fictional character.
Troll Brutal is apparently a mod, and deleted my entry from YMMV, and I assume is the one who suspended me (He is not the troper I had problems with, whom I've deliberately chosen not to name). Troll Brutal was actually quite reasonable when a fairly long time back I had a dispute on the same page when I (not knowing rules about natter) disputed calling terrorists anti-villains when they are full out villains and argued about it. He taught me "repair, don't respond" and I made loads of uncontroversial edits since, heeding that rule, until the dispute for which I'm suspended.
I'd love to be able to honestly say, "Please unsuspend me, and I'll just avoid posting anything about Homeland," given that I've posted so much on so many other topics without controversy, and have had controversy over Homeland, but to feel okay about that, I have to have it explained to me what I did wrong— why I should have been expected to fully surrender in the edit war, and what I could have done differently.
If there's a policy that covers it, I have no problem at all abiding by it. If I'm asked to wait to see how the season plays out, that's cool if that's the general policy. If it's clear that most people who watched it seem to agree with the other troper that Saul's actions were right, then I'll admit there's no support for my point of view and willingly give it up. However, if the other troper is just engaged in a power play, then I need some real discussion if I'm supposed to accept that.
Thanks for reading.
I haven't looked into your case so I shan't cover anything else, but I'll just clarify that Troll Brutal is not a Mod. You can see a full list of our staff on the page Know The Staff.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

I was suspended from the review section due to “importing drama”. Curiously, the message I received included a link to the offending comment, except it was completely blank. I’m guessing it was deleted? Well, I am not exactly sure which comment drew the wrath of the mods down upon me, but I do acknowledge my mistake. I went through the wrong channels in dealing with a reviewer who was posting patently false statements regarding content in a story and cross-referenced the drama he was creating on the website of the work in question. I was admittedly overzealous and would like to apologize for my behavior. Would it be too much to ask for my suspension to be lifted?