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
A good place to start would be to not demonstrate the same bad grammar skills in your appeal posts.
As it stands we're going to have to ask you to report to the "Get help with English" thread over in Wiki Talk. Once you demonstrate sufficient improvement there we'll release you.
However you were also suspended for issues with Zero Context Examples and Word Cruft, allowing with using those in an Edit War.
edited 6th Mar '16 11:12:34 PM by Deadbeatloser22
"Yup. That tasted purple."And as for zero context, there was usually some sort of mention on the page by the time I put it there except one case were I said it was in the dialogue.
It seems that I still haven't really got this site editing style, I'm sorry for all the trouble, I hope to start editing again in a few days from now, so I hope someone can tell me what I'm doing wrong.
The length of time I've been kept waiting without explanation is getting obscene. What's going on here? If this is a cooldown ban you can at least tell me so, and you still haven't explained what exactly I did that you took exception to.
Moderators; are you deliberately leaving me in the lurch, because it looks that way? No Moderator apart from Deadbeatloser 22 has spoken to me. What do you hope to achieve? Are you trying to goad me to anger, hoping that I'll break a rule of the site and that you can use it as an excuse to permanently ban me? It makes no sense since you already have that kind of power, and I daresay you appear to be abusing it (It looks like I have done so in the past, At Least I Admit It and am trying to better myself). Do you have some hidden agenda or other ulterior motive behind this treatment of me? Maybe past posts of mine ruffled your feathers and banning me is fulfilling some agenda of yours. Maybe you're blocking me in an attempt to censor me because you disagree with some or all of my views in this day and age where freedom of speech is our right. I explained my intentions so I don't think you're still discussing my case, which was proven not to be hate speech. Or, since religious subject matter was involved, perhaps what's happening to me is a case of Political Correctness Gone Mad.
I know not all Moderators are like this but the fact that no others have stepped in looks damning in regards to the above paragraph.
The rules of the site say this is supposed to be about mutual respect, right now it's looking like a one-way street in your favor. Also notice that while I am speaking candidly to you, Moderators, I remained polite. I did not swear, I did not use poor grammar, I did not call you names and while I questioned your motives/voiced my suspicions I did not launch a personal attack. Please keep that in mind if you respond to this.
edited 7th Mar '16 1:00:40 PM by quirkygenius
~quirkygenius, you made edits on Acceptable Religious Targets that appear to be a religious agenda about Christianity being persecuted. Especially that edit focusing on Jewish media. This is egregiously inappropriate - we don't host religious agendas here, full stop. Fighteer has been inactive here for a while hence the lack of response.
~T-troper20: "Grammar, natter, and spoiler tagging issues." is the ban reason.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanI kinda still want to know what "only allowing certain permissible topics of conversation" even means, and how disagreeing with someone about whether a scientific inaccuracy is objectively a flaw, and being snarky about that disagreement is an example of it.
Personally, I would think that someone saying that a thing I like is "objectively a flaw" is an example of them trying to shut down a certain topic of conversation as not being permissible? That topic of conversation being positive metanarrative aspects of a thing in question. Can't talk about it because it's bad objectively and anybody who disagrees is wrong because objectivity.
But maybe that's just me? I'd still like an explanation for how what I did is an example of what I'm being accused of because the only examples Fighteer gave, while definitely proving I was being snarky and rude about the debate, don't seem to prove that I was trying to prohibit the debate from taking place.
Thank you Septimus. My impatience stemmed from the fact that, even without Fighteer, I assumed that another moderator would respond to my case but did not do so for an usually long time. My remark about Jewish Media was not intended to be antisemitic in any way and I apologize if that is how it appeared. I explained the intention behind the post; it looked like there was a connection in media, did a bit of research of my own and saw the Tv Tropes page You Have to Have Jews. Now I know you have stated you will not tolerate a religious agenda; I had concerns that this site had a veiled anti-religious/atheist agenda. In short, I am sorry.
On a side note, while I did not give an accurate statement, persecution of Christianity does happen today and at times even gets deadly (this link gives more information and specific examples; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Christian_sentiment)
. I posted this just to reveal the facts behind my idea.
Thank you for setting the record straight. If allowed back, I shall edit with discernment and without agenda (and I reiterate that I am not antisemitic in any way). In light of this, may I please have the ban lifted and be allowed to edit again?
edited 7th Mar '16 3:28:15 PM by quirkygenius
P.S. Pardon me for saying so, I just wish to clear the air. My controversial (and now known to be inaccurate) remark was a speculation pertaining to the level of Jewish influence in Western Media, it was not a criticism. Also, it was not aimed at Jewish Media.
I'm worried this whole situation could enter Political Correctness Gone Mad territory. I hope this situation can be resolved quickly and effectively.
I'm not banned from editing but apparently I am banned from Workshop threads? The forums say they're closed to me. I don't get it. Searching what that phrase means just tells me to go to the ban thread.
I only use the forums for Image Pickin' and Trope Repair. The last post I posted was just me mentioning Infant Immortality should have its age limit listed explicitly. I don't see how that was cause for a ban, but if so I'm sorry. If not... Well, 'still sorry I suppose. I don't use this part of Tvtropes but being banned is still embarrassing.
I was not aware that I was suspended, nor did I get any notification that I was until I saw a reference in the Ask The Tropers section. I think the way I was suspended was a misunderstanding because 1. I was not aware of everything that was going on around regarding me in the Ask The Tropers section of the site. 2. No one informed me of it while it was happening over there until I brought something up on a discussion page and it was after I made another edit-war, which led to my suspension.
I would like to know why I was suspended, and if there is any chance my suspension could be lifted. If unsuspended, I promise to follow the rules as closely as possible. But moderators and editors should yield and keep people informed of complaints made about them and those like myself will follow through if I see if we're overstepping our bounds as editors.
And I do apologize for any trouble I caused to any fellow editors.
edited 8th Mar '16 7:33:52 AM by Classicalfan626
~Classicalfan626: Over a year ago, you were edit banned for edit warring on YMMV.The Powerpuff Girls.
Pichu-kun: You keep making badly argued opening posts in the workshops. We need well argued topics there. The ban message not linking to this thread is something that Query Bugs should probably be informed of.
~quirkygenius: We do hang somewhat towards atheism here, but the issue with your edits is the agenda. Which you seem to be trying to justify rather than disavowing, at least as far as this site is concerned.
~unnoun: Your last few posts in the Doctor Who thread have a condescending undertone that is unacceptable. Further, there have been a number of complaints in the past that your activity in that thread ends up dominating everything.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanI mean. I'll cop to that.
I definitely got more condescending in that debate than I intended at the outset.
...And, I mean. I definitely know that there are complaints about me dominating the conversation in the Doctor Who thread, and I frequently make those complaints myself, personally, in the thread in question.
I'm very opinionated, especially about Doctor Who, and when I disagree with something I say so. Persistently. Even when I'm not being condescending, even when it's a topic I like, even when I'm having fun, because I like talking about things sometimes.
And. I definitely know I've gotten in some bad habits with that.
I've noticed that some people I've convinced, and changed their minds, and gotten to agree with me, to an extent that surprises me because I'm not used to some of my views about Doctor Who being agreed with by other fans?
And once or twice it seems like people expressed the sentiment that they felt unwelcome, which was by no means my intent. Felt really shitty about it.
It's definitely something I'm aware of and been trying to work on. And apparently I've not been doing a good enough job. And I'm sorry for it.
@Septimus Heap - Is it possible to lift the ban? I promise I won't engage in edit-warring here anymore.
Looking back at some of the things I have edited, I realize what I did wrong. I never considered myself the best in terms of writing, but I know what I did to get banned, and I can promise I won't make the same mistakes if my ban is lifted. I never meant to waste the admin's time with this, I'm sure you get many of these daily, and I apologize for my stupid mistakes.
I like movies, T.V., video games, books, and, obviously, Wolves!I knew this site leaned towards atheism. Septimus, that last post carries some rather Unfortunate Implications; you said that a religious agenda is not tolerated here and that the site hangs towards atheism. It comes across as hypocritical and a case of Moral Myopia to condemn religious agendas while the site appears to have an anti-religious/atheist agenda. I notice that I am criticized for a Christian agenda yet when it appeared I was saying something negative about Juadism (which I was not) that those words were condemned. While I hope the site is better than that, I am concerned as there appears to be a trace of religion-based discrimination, which is illegal. The link was not to justify an agenda, it was to explain the facts that inspired my actions. Those facts in the link I posted still stand, regardless of how anyone feels about them.
If allowed back I shall only concern myself with facts and story devices and not edit just to fulfill an agenda. If the issue is with my religious beliefs, apart from that being prejudice, I am not going to change my religion or apologize for my beliefs just because some people don't like it. Being pressured into such an action would violate anti-discrimination laws. I will adhere to the Tv Tropes code of conduct from now on and not edit to fulfill an agenda. In that light, I once again request the ban be lifted and may I have my editing privileges back? I leave it in your hands, moderators.
I didn't realize my posts were badly argued. Maybe I am just not cut out for those types of discussions. Sorry.
sorry... Sans actually DID logon to my account though... his fault, not mine. Okay, maybe i asked him a few questions, but that's all.
Chimi-freakin'-changas!FYI, I'm trying not to be the only mod working this topic. It leads to burnout on my end and a lack of involvement from the other mods, not to mention the impression that I'm the lone hardass among the staff. Anyway...
~Badger96: As you have now indicated that you understand the rules about Conversation In The Main Page, I'll release your suspension. Sorry for the delay.
~WJTaylor4: Wow, it looks like we missed your reply way back here
. That's totally on us; you have my deepest apologies. I really think you need to take some time to study our Example Indentation rules to make sure you understand them, otherwise we'll just have to suspend you again. For now, though, I'll unblock you.
~Maverick00: Your writing is really terrible. I'm sorry; maybe you are still a student or something, but we can't have you doing that on the wiki. If you want to try to demonstrate improvement, you can post in this topic
with examples you'd like to add to the wiki, but we will not, under any circumstances, release your suspension unless we're confident that you can do better.
edited 9th Mar '16 8:14:48 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"~TheWolfBoy007: We appreciate your contrition, but we'd prefer less self-flagellation and more specifics. The issues with your editing are that you are edit warring to preserve incorrect Example Indentation in Trope Lists, and that you are using wiki comment markup to argue with the people trying to correct your work, while ignoring private messages directed your way.
One of the primary rules of our site is that the wiki should not be used to carry out arguments. if the Discussion pages aren't working, use private messages or Ask The Tropers. Got it?
~Dimentiosdragon: You were suspended for changing Characters.Undertale Main Characters to first-person, using bad grammar. Considering that your account is only 20 days old, I fail to understand what letting another person use it has to do with anything, other than demonstrating a lack of common sense when it comes to basic account security rules. Either way, I can't justify releasing your suspension until I understand what's going on. Make some sense, man!
Edit: I am now informed that you are claiming that a character from the game took over your account and rewrote that page. Have you taken your schizophrenia medication lately?
~Classicalfan626: You were warned for rudeness and continued to do it anyway. That's not the mark of a good troper. Considering how long ago the ban occurred, I'm inclined to leniency, but why did you wait over a year to appeal?
edited 9th Mar '16 8:36:14 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Septimus Heap I am was trying to make quick work of "the the" in the tropes. I didn't realize that it was added a long time ago and that it shouldn't have been there in the first place. I discussing this with willbyr here.
~Quirkygenius: Oh, boy. If you consider refusing to put up with people pushing religious points of view on the wiki articles to be "an atheist agenda", then I suppose we have to plead guilty. Bear in mind that we are not a government agency, so the First Amendment does not apply, nor is telling you that you can't use our site to bitch about being persecuted a form of persecution. For the record, if someone comes on here and starts spouting anti-theist rhetoric (something that has happened in the past), we would ban them just as quickly.
Rather, consider our point of view. We want our site to be used to discuss tropes in media, in an environment where everyone can feel comfortable that they won't be dragged into religious or political or social fights. You can join forum discussions if you like; there are a few topics for religious tropers, and they do fine as long as people don't go all apocalyptic/evangelical/hellfire and damnation on us.
Also for the record, if the Acceptable Religious Targets article is unfairly critical of any particular group, we'd like to know about it so it can be corrected. That would include expressing opinions as facts, rather than documenting the facts of people's opinions. It's an important distinction.
Can you accept these conditions?
edited 9th Mar '16 8:58:39 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Dimentiosdragon, I am not sure what you are hoping to accomplish by claiming that your account was hijacked by a fictional character.
"Yup. That tasted purple."~Super Max Is Here: OK, remember that if someone contests your edit you should not simply readd it. Lifted suspension.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

I was told to appeal here I believe.