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
On December I was suspended for Edit Warring on a page. I was really taken aback. I am writing to request that my suspension be lifted, if that is okay with you guys
Am I still being attended to? Anyone still here?
~Super Max Is Here: Why did you keep adding "the the" to Attack of the Eye Creatures.
~static09: Is the bot now off?
~Damus2300: Lifted the suspension, please remember the tense rules.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman~Super Max Is Here: To build on Septimus' question: After looking at the page's history, it appears that you were continuing the theme of adding in the extra "the" everywhere that it normally occurred on the page, in keeping with what had been done on that page nearly a year earlier. However, this gag was not a kosher edit to the page from the get-go and never should have been started, much less continued. Understood?
~Pallex: Please stop edit warring on Characters.Xenoblade Chronicles X, then.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanPerhaps you can explain what was happening on Characters.Xenoblade Chronicles X then.
"Yup. That tasted purple."So apparently I've been banned, and I haven't gotten a message about why?
It was probably about an argument in the Doctor Who thread, which is weird because I didn't think I'd said anything too out of line? I tried to be civil and respectful.
What I think is weird is that I apparently haven't said anything offensive or rude enough to be thumped for it?
It's pretty simple. You don't get to pick what is considered permissible conversation in that thread. We've told you this before. You've got the place running like your personal chatroom, and it's just not something we can keep tolerating.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"...Um. I'm not sure how or where I said anything was or wasn't permissible conversation? I disagreed with an assertion someone made, but I don't think that's the same thing.
"Stories are capable of working on multiple levels. Just because you aren't capable of the same is irrelevant."
"You fail the course."
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Okay, both of those are clearly jokes, the first was in response to the other person's assertion that all stories work a certain way, and the second was in tandem with saying that the other poster was making a tautology.
And neither of them is an example of me trying to only allow certain topics of conversation as permissible. I repeatedly said that the way the other person viewed stories was valid, just that it wasn't the only way to view stories. My objection was to the belief that his views were objective facts, not that he had them or talked about them.
I still want an explanation for how I only allow certain permissible conversations.
Like, were they slightly dickish things to say? Okay, yeah, not really any worse than I remember anyone else in that conversation being, but okay, yeah, sure, thump me for them. That's completely and totally fair enough. I probably deserve that.
But that's not what I'm being accused of. I don't see how stating that I disagree with another person's viewpoint, and explaining why I disagree, is an example of only allowing certain permissible conversations.
Hello to whoever responds. I have recently received an edit ban and I am here to get the matter resolved and, if necessary, change my conduct on this site. I am not sure what inspired this, though I have theories. Please let me know what the problem is and I will strive to resolve it.
Thank you and hope to hear from you soon.
So what exactly were you trying to do on Acceptable Religious Targets then?
"Yup. That tasted purple."I was putting forward plausible (though strongly worded, in retrospect) theories as to why Christianity appeared to be singled out/over-represented in media ridicule. The header text for that page stated that what was put on the page was opinion, which did encourage some heated points and appeared imply more leeway was allowed on this page. Regarding what I wrote, to cite an example, Judaism's history of persecution is part of the reason people are reluctant to criticize Judaism in Western Media today, yet Christianity has also been persecuted in similar ways throughout history (I even provided a link detailing that, which has now been deleted); it appears unfair that Judaism's Dark and Troubled Past confers quasi-protected status against criticism onto it when Christianity's Dark and Troubled Past doesn't do the same.
The edits to my point are mostly more erudite than what I wrote and I thank whoever made that change; (on a side note, there is one thing in that new text I disagree with; they stated the the main criticism of Christianity is hypocrisy; there's a difference between trying and failing to live up to a standard and hypocrisy, which by definition refers to someone professing to follow a moral teaching when they actually don't. That accusation of hypocrisy can be applied to more religions than just Christianity, so Christianity should not be singled out for it [again, not pointing fingers, just explaining a perspective]).
In summary, I was trying to present some facts to counteract what appeared to be anti-Christian bias and made the mistake of getting caught up in what I thought was Righting Great Wrongs; which I shall strive not to do in future edits. From now on, I shall stick to adding facts and moving things that are unproven or questionable to YMMV if possible (and removing them with cited reasons if not). Are there any other problems regarding my conduct?
edited 2nd Mar '16 1:25:49 PM by quirkygenius
Good evening, tropers :) Possibly the reason why I was banned is that I took away some of the "zero context mark" on the character pages of The Divergent and The Maze Runner series - but only of those where a description was added by some other tropers and even added information to some of the tropes, providing actual examples from the books not only things like "they do that often" or so on, while keeping the tropes with no context still hidden. I had actually no idea the thing I have done was not allowed because I also spend a lot of research when adding my own examples to the tropes that already where on the pages and was kinda sad when it got removed :( But anyways in conclusion I am incredible sorry because I tried to be too helpful and probably had overseen the rules for the zero context thing.
To clarify, in my previous post here I was stating my perspective and why I have those views, they are subjective (which could also be said of contradictory views). I am concerned because of the length of time between replies; it gives me the impression either my case is one that provoked much discussion, or I am being ignored because I appear to have not learned my lesson, so to speak. Please, as soon as possible, inform me of the problems with my conduct (which I will adjust it as necessary) and whether or not I will regain my editing privileges.
Haven't been forgotten, have I?
Silence in the Library: I did ask fellow moderators, none of them was really convinced.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanI don't really know what else to say, then. Am I just supposed to be indefinitely suspended or can I expect this to lift after a certain amount of time? I have a growing to-do list.
Thanks for your effort, either way.
edited 3rd Mar '16 2:18:11 PM by SilenceInTheLibrary
...Could I at least get an explanation or definition of what "only allowing certain permissable conversations" even means? And, ideally, how it relates to me participating and continuing conversations that, supposedly, I want to stop?
Because, like, I find it hard to reconcile with the fact that I'm being accused of it because of debates that I have participated in and kept going when, if I didn't want said conversations to be happening, participating in them and continuing them would be the last thing I'd want?
I dunno, man, to me that sounds more like "ordinary (albeit rude and condescending, and I'm sorry for that) debate" to me.
Let's clear the air about what may be the elephant in the room; I am not an anti-Semite or anti-Islam and I AM NOT saying that Judaism and Islam should be the target of scorn. WHAT I WROTE WAS NOT INTENDED AS HATE SPEECH. I apologize if that's how it came across or if someone else misconstrued it as such, it was not my intention. My comments were about the idea that the media seems to avoid saying anything that could even sound questioning about Judaism or negative about Jewish people (even in instances such as when a Jewish person commits a serious crime) when not extending the same courtesy to Christianity or Islam, while also appearing to fear Islam (ie; buying into stereotypes that they helped perpetuate). I also wrote some details under atheism about how it's portrayed in media on the Acceptable Religious Targets page, that's it; if the issue's about anything else written on that page besides what I mentioned I DID NOT DO IT.
I have not received a response for a few days now, which is coming across as quite unprofessional, mods, considering that others have received more prompt responses even when you've decided not to allow them back.
If you don't want me back just say so.
If you want me to have an indefinite time-out just say so.
If you're willing to hear me out (which I doubt since I appear to be getting the silent treatment/cold shoulder) just say so.
Why drag it out? If this is a cooldown ban, I'd appreciate the courtesy of you just saying it's an indefinite cooldown ban and we leave it at that until you're satisfied.
What is the issue? I read the guidelines/links posted to me by Septimus and know where I've crossed the line, but not why I was banned since all that was said to me was "What were you trying to do on the Acceptable Religious Targets page?" That's is not very specific so I can't know what the ban-worthy offence was. Your page "What To Do If You Are Suspended" says a ban means "Come Talk To Us" which doesn't work if you don't talk to me/provide feedback.
edited 3rd Mar '16 12:54:54 PM by quirkygenius

My bad.
edited 19th Mar '16 6:22:38 PM by staticat09