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
Hi, so, my editing privileges were suspended? What did I do?
Don't stan, just fan~Quantum Reality: The suspension may have been a bit excessive, but it was based on your history with us. I'll lift it.
~Queen Marine: You Natter. A lot. The wiki is not a chatroom or a forum. You do not add sub-bullets to examples justifying, explaining, refuting, or adding to them, ever. A recent example is here
.
edited 20th Apr '15 9:26:29 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Oh, really? I could have sworn I've done that before and nobody said anything. Also, it seems like one of the examples had a bit of natter already anyway.
edited 20th Apr '15 9:38:12 AM by QueenMarine
Don't stan, just fanYou have six PM notifications for natter, and just because someone else does it is not an excuse to do it yourself.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"SeptimusHeap: Actually, nobody within actual, modern trans communities uses the term "transsexual" anymore. The reasons for this are 1) because it's misleading (___sexual implies sexual orientation) and 2) because not all trans people end up operating on their genitals. Transgender is the currently accepted term. Not everybody knows this, but that's why I corrected it so that more people would know of it. I don't think that's a problem. Also, that edit hasn't been reverted, also implying that it isn't a problem.
As for the bullet formatting, I probably have made some mistakes at points, though I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about completely, it's very believable. This may result from the fact that I first began browsing TV Tropes when formatting was less enforced and consistent, so I probably internalized habits that aren't used so much anymore. In any case, over the years I've slowly been trying to remember the proper formatting more and more. If that was the reason that my editing was turned off, I can understand that a lot better than the other things.
As an aside, I know I've received a notification before to add cross-examples when I made the Zero Escape page, but the reason I didn't do that was because examples were already on those pages for the individual games within that series, so I didn't need to add them - they were already there.
edited 20th Apr '15 10:58:16 AM by Leetroper
~Leetroper: Your editing was turned off primarily because you deleted references to a gender-ambiguous character with the comment that it is "gross".
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I wasn't trying to justify my actions by pointing to other people; I was just mentioning it to explain my view here; I didn't think natter was a major issue, certainly not something I'd get banned for. Those P Ms were infrequent, so I thought it was just someone making suggestions. I'm sorry, I'll take it seriously from now on.
Don't stan, just fan~Queen Marine: To be clear, natter is one of the primary banning offenses, if done repeatedly. It's something we take pretty seriously. Examples should be the wiki talking to the audience as one voice, not a whole bunch of voices talking to each other. When you see it, you should remove it not add to it.
I'll remove your suspension, but this is the second time you've run afoul of wiki policy through ignorance. If it happens again, that justification won't be accepted.
edited 20th Apr '15 11:14:51 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I wasn't aware the comment really mattered, but I've already explained in a previous post the awkwardness of the sentence and why I changed it, because previously (and now currently again) the page is completely inconsistent with the pronouns it uses for Birdo. This is rather sloppy. Given that Birdo is female, I standardized the pronouns. What is the problem with this? Is it just my comment? I'll try to be more professional with my edit descriptions in the future, then. I didn't know they mattered, since they haven't on other wikis I've used, but if they do, then I can definitely avoid that from here on out.
edited 20th Apr '15 11:19:52 AM by Leetroper
~Leetroper: The comment made you look like an elementary school student who thinks that gender ambiguity is "icky". The wider issue is that you sound like the kind of person who wants to make the wiki convey a social message. That's not our purpose. We are descriptive, not prescriptive. Also, you're expending an awful lot of effort on behalf of fictional characters — they aren't real and have no feelings to hurt.
If we release your suspension, we want a promise that you will cut out the crusading and help play with tropes like the rest of us.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"See, but this is just how gender works. The character's gender is their gender. Birdo, as a character, considers herself female, therefore, Birdo is female. There's no social statement being made there, that's just the facts. As silly as it may seem to take fiction so seriously, this wiki is one about fiction. The page was completely inconsistent about how it was referring to Birdo, so I standardized it with the most logical choice. I can understand people disagreeing about this, but this is in no way a major problem that deserves moderator action applied to it. This isn't some eeevil "SJW" attacking your wiki with monstrous agendas, this is just... consistency of the page.
I'll point out once again how other characters on this wiki have the same logic that I'm applying, applied to them.
I encourage you to not look at me like somebody with an ulterior motive. This is the same as correcting a grammar issue or an information error. Most of my edits to this wiki are not of the nature you are accusing me of, so it's hardly my primary goal. My knowledge about social issues is just that - knowledge, not a scheme or plan.
edited 20th Apr '15 11:43:10 AM by Leetroper
Then an edit reason like "Changing to a more accurate use of pronouns" would have been more accurate than "lets please not be gross :(". One makes you sound like someone objective and just making a quick fix. The other makes you sound like a grossed out 4th grader.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickI know that. I already explained that I will try to be more professional with my edit descriptions, because I wasn't aware that they mattered and thus was being mostly casual with them. Sorry, my personality is inconsistent, which is why that edit description + my first post here were very casual and loose, while all the other posts I've been making have been more formal. You don't have to be condescending about this because I already said that I now understand to make my intentions more clear.
However, the edit itself was reverted, and I still haven't been told why. I do think the section needs editing to be more consistent, going beyond the scope of just this conversation, since gender ambiguity is certainly not what's going on there so the trope doesn't really fit.
edited 20th Apr '15 9:52:14 PM by Leetroper
Hey guys,
So I made a list of tropes I've launched /curated / help clean up on my troper page. How else should I prove I understand what makes a good trope?
Alright, so I was either banned or suspended, but I can't access my P Ms for the details.
This is a signature.You have been blocked from forum posting and from the PM system for a deliberate and malicious trolling effort against another poster. This is in violation of several of our site rules, primarily "Don't Be A Dick", and "Don't Troll". It also falls under "No Personal Attacks" in a more general sense. Because this was deliberate; planned in advance; you know the rules and know that it violated them; and it involved both the forums and PMs, your forum and PM bans are not open to appeal. They stand, and are permanent. I would also remind you that making a new account to evade these bans will be grounds for a complete block on access to any of the site.
"Yup. That tasted purple."I have no recollection of a trolling campaign. I'm confused.
This is a signature.I think you know exactly what we're talking about. We have confirmation both external and internal — we can look at PM conversations, in case you didn't realize.
The fact is that your offsite spat spilled out into TV Tropes, and your conversations reveal that you knew perfectly well that what you were planning to do was against the rules and could get you banned. Well, it has. And that, as they say, is that.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Ah, that... I thought that you meant something on-site. Anyway, you don't know the full context. It wasn't an attempt to troll; it was an attempt to frequently report the actions of someone whom I viewed to be malevolent, in an effort to get them banned. I never technically started this endeavor, so all that you have is an idea. Also, this was reported from a private, off-site conversation, which is importing drama.
This is a signature.Bullshit, and you know it. Besides, someone else's behavior does not justify yours. You know that never convinces us.
The fact that it was also corroborated by offsite information doesn't change the fact that we've got your P Ms.
Don't try to rules lawyer us.
edited 22nd Apr '15 11:14:39 AM by Madrugada
We were wondering what approach you'd take, and it seems that you have adopted the Rules Lawyer one. This is not in any way novel. "Frequently reporting someone in an attempt to get them banned" is something you could put in a textbook as an example of trolling. In fact, I've read it in trolling manuals. That you planned it offsite in no way changes the fact that your intent was to conduct this behavior here on TV Tropes. That it was reported to us means that we can deal with it now, before it becomes a serious problem.
We will never punish people who report problems to us in good faith. By first denying your behavior, and then making excuses, you have amply demonstrated that you are not operating in good faith.
I think we've seen enough.
edited 22nd Apr '15 11:15:35 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"What's bullshit about it? This was reported by a person who didn't see the earlier conversation, in which this was fully explained. What you received was a screenshot of a follow-up conservation, which did not paint me in the most flattering light. So, all that you have is something that was taken out of context.
This is a signature.That behaviour on its own is enough for a ban. There is no explanation good enough for starting a harassment campaign like that one. Never ever.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanI never actually took this anywhere, though. Can I truly be banned for something that I never technically did? I'm just trying to understand this.
This is a signature.

To Fighteer and Dead Beat Loser 22
Hi. I'm checking up on my suspension. I've taken a trip to the Help With English forums to get help with my grammar. I was wondering if my grammar is up to par and if I can get that suspension removed.
edited 20th Apr '15 8:52:22 AM by Kingofsouls
I am a figment of your imagination