TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

An Official Banning Policy?

Go To

BobbyG vigilantly taxonomish from England Since: Jan, 2001
vigilantly taxonomish
#226: Feb 23rd 2011 at 1:46:43 PM

Hang on, I'm confused. Is this a hypothetical scenario? There is no member of TV Tropes forum staff with the name Mr Death.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
CentralAvenue Literally A Princess from The Palace of Serenity Since: Sep, 2014
Literally A Princess
#227: Feb 23rd 2011 at 3:01:31 PM

No, it was on a discussion page. Mr Death edited some discussion comments to "WAAAAA" or something.

(It was here, but it's since been deleted.)

edited 23rd Feb '11 3:02:20 PM by CentralAvenue

Heapers’ Hangout
BobbyG vigilantly taxonomish from England Since: Jan, 2001
vigilantly taxonomish
#228: Feb 23rd 2011 at 4:55:44 PM

Ah. Well, Mr Death isn't forum staff. Anyone can edit those discussion comments.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
tsstevens Reading tropes such as You Know What You Did from Reading tropes such as Righting Great Wrongs Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: She's holding a very large knife
Reading tropes such as You Know What You Did
#229: Feb 23rd 2011 at 7:22:10 PM

But doing so to change the tone of what someone else says, I understand, is severe enough for a complete ban from the site. Not that I think Mr Death deserves it, but if that is what the rules are then isn't that what we have to abide by?

Currently reading up My Rule Fu Is Stronger than Yours
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#230: Feb 24th 2011 at 6:11:59 AM

As only Eddie can do the complete ban thing, all I can say is that he hopefully paid his dues and promised to behave. Either that or it got overlooked.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
tsstevens Reading tropes such as You Know What You Did from Reading tropes such as Righting Great Wrongs Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: She's holding a very large knife
Reading tropes such as You Know What You Did
#231: Feb 25th 2011 at 1:28:02 PM

I wanted to ask something I'm sure everyone is wondering. What happened to the PM system? It seems that edit bans at the moment is the in thing to do when the site staff need to discuss something wrong. Isn't an edit ban something that is meant to take place when a PM about someone's behavior doesn't work?

Currently reading up My Rule Fu Is Stronger than Yours
TParadox Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: The captain of her heart
blackcat Since: Apr, 2009
#233: Feb 25th 2011 at 2:16:19 PM

Often you will get a response to a pm along the lines of: "I am very sorry and I won't do it again" and then 13 seconds later they do it again.

tsstevens Reading tropes such as You Know What You Did from Reading tropes such as Righting Great Wrongs Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: She's holding a very large knife
Reading tropes such as You Know What You Did
#234: Feb 25th 2011 at 2:25:09 PM

Wouldn't an edit ban then take place in that instance? Just me, using the PM system first might make it easier to see who would behave and who wouldn't if it's shown that they ignore warnings when they ask for their editing privileges back.

Currently reading up My Rule Fu Is Stronger than Yours
Madrugada Since: Jan, 2001
#235: Feb 25th 2011 at 2:51:46 PM

We have no way of knowing whether a PM was ever read. So we have no way of knowing whether the person knows that they did something wrong. Dropping an edit ban on them means that the next time they try to edit a page they will unavoidably get a message to come to the forums and find out what's going on. It also keeps them from making any more problematic edits until we're sure that they know what they did wrong and why it was wrong.

tsstevens Reading tropes such as You Know What You Did from Reading tropes such as Righting Great Wrongs Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: She's holding a very large knife
Reading tropes such as You Know What You Did
#236: Feb 25th 2011 at 3:06:05 PM

Isn't that kind of like nuking Afghanistan for September 11 though?

Currently reading up My Rule Fu Is Stronger than Yours
Madrugada Since: Jan, 2001
#237: Feb 25th 2011 at 4:15:55 PM

Not really, no. They're making edits that damage the wiki. Two things need to happen:

  • The damaging edits need to stop, and
  • The person making them needs to understand why what they were doing was bad.

Dropping an edit ban on them, then lifting it if they come to the forum to talk and indicate that they understand what they were doing wrong, and that it will stop accomplishes both of those things.

P Ming them and hoping that 1) they read the PM and 2) they understand what they were doing wrong, while 3) allowing them to continue to edit may accomplish one or both, but we can't be sure of accomplishing either.

tsstevens Reading tropes such as You Know What You Did from Reading tropes such as Righting Great Wrongs Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: She's holding a very large knife
Reading tropes such as You Know What You Did
#238: Feb 25th 2011 at 4:26:04 PM

Don't get me wrong, I think having the edit ban forum is a great idea. It allows the staff to demonstrate that they are doing the right thing and back up their decisions, or be held accountable in the event they make a mistake or perhaps act out of spite or something. It just seems that a PM, with a note attached saying an edit ban would take place if there is no reply in, say, two days or the behavior continues, seems to be the more logical first step.

Currently reading up My Rule Fu Is Stronger than Yours
blackcat Since: Apr, 2009
#239: Feb 25th 2011 at 6:11:17 PM

Do you have any idea how much damage a dedicated vandal can cause in an hour? Much less two days. We have to move quickly and definitively so that everyone's energy is spent on making the wiki better, not cleaning it up.

edited 25th Feb '11 6:12:02 PM by blackcat

HersheleOstropoler You gotta get yourself some marble columns from BK.NY.US Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Less than three
You gotta get yourself some marble columns
#240: Feb 25th 2011 at 6:26:16 PM

If someone who was banned can reform, that's a bonus; the point of bannng people is so the harm they are doing stops. If they slink away, that's fine. The intent is to arrest the damage, not fix the person, so lecturing them about it is secondary.

If it were possible to PM people who were about to commit a bannable offence, that would be better than waiting for them to do it and then banning. But that's seldom possible.

The child is father to the man —Oedipus
tsstevens Reading tropes such as You Know What You Did from Reading tropes such as Righting Great Wrongs Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: She's holding a very large knife
Reading tropes such as You Know What You Did
#241: Feb 25th 2011 at 7:14:02 PM

How about being able to draw a distinction between someone who does make a genuine mistake and someone who is a dedicated vandal? Is there some reason you cannot tell the difference and PM someone who makes one mistake and ban those who make several? Isn't that what can be worked out by looking over a suspect person's edit history?

Currently reading up My Rule Fu Is Stronger than Yours
blackcat Since: Apr, 2009
#242: Feb 25th 2011 at 7:36:21 PM

We do look at edit histories. But the first thing that has to happen is stopping the damage. The intent of the person causing the damage is a secondary issue. We have to stop the damage.

Madrugada Since: Jan, 2001
#243: Feb 25th 2011 at 8:08:04 PM

A well-meaning but misinformed editor can do more damage than a dedicated vandal in the same amount of time. Edit histories tell us what they did They very rarely tell us why they did it. But mostly, we need to stop the damage from continuing.

One or two minor editing mistakes won't get an edit ban. Someone moving all the YMMV trope off of the YMMV tab and back onto the main page will — that's not minor damage. Someone blanking a page is not minor damage. Someone edit-warring has usually already demonstrated that they aren't going to discuss their edits unless they're forced to — that's part of what defines an "edit war". Someone unilaterally deciding to rewriting the page to change the definition or remaking a page that's been cut is demonstrating that they don't care about consensus or co-operation. These are editors who need, first and foremost, to be prevented from continuing to do their damage. As wiki and forum mods, our first responsibility is the continuing good health of the wiki.

tsstevens Reading tropes such as You Know What You Did from Reading tropes such as Righting Great Wrongs Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: She's holding a very large knife
Reading tropes such as You Know What You Did
#244: Feb 25th 2011 at 8:21:27 PM

Now we're getting somewhere. Okay, thanks for the information.

Currently reading up My Rule Fu Is Stronger than Yours
HersheleOstropoler You gotta get yourself some marble columns from BK.NY.US Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Less than three
You gotta get yourself some marble columns
#245: Feb 25th 2011 at 8:48:26 PM

Edit warring can be an honest mistake, if someone doesn't understand that the example they added was removed deliberately because it was bad rather than inadvertantly or by one editor being grouchy.

The child is father to the man —Oedipus
blackcat Since: Apr, 2009
#246: Feb 25th 2011 at 9:10:25 PM

That is why we have an edit reason box. Filling that out would stop a lot of the miscommunication.

Madrugada Since: Jan, 2001
#247: Feb 25th 2011 at 9:51:22 PM

And discussion pages. A note saying "I moved the example to the discussion page because [reason]; if you think it should be restored please explain why" also goes a long way toward avoiding edit wars.

Vorpy Unstoppable Sex Goddess from from from from from from from from from Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: Two-timing
Unstoppable Sex Goddess
#248: Mar 1st 2011 at 9:28:37 PM

@Discussion about Personal Attacks

If the mods know what "hypothetical" user the people in question are talking about, it still counts as a personal attack, or a thumpable "don't do that" offense?

Such as somebody going "Well at least you aren't a weirdo battery fetishist" when somebody has revealed that they are infact a battery fetishist, even though they didn't mention a name.

And on the policy of Dogpiling. Is it less of a bannable offense if multiple people are flaming/sniping/making fun of a troper, or is everyone on the same level and will have action taken against them for it?

Troper Page
Ironeye Cutmaster-san from SoCal Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
Cutmaster-san
#249: Mar 1st 2011 at 9:58:55 PM

I'll tackle the easy one. Yes, it still counts as a personal attack even if you don't use their name. If I make a post about a Disney-obsessed feminist who frequents OTC  *

in which I say all sorts of awful things about her, it's still a personal attack even if I never type "Kara" or "Karalora" anywhere in the post.

I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.
BobbyG vigilantly taxonomish from England Since: Jan, 2001
vigilantly taxonomish
#250: Mar 2nd 2011 at 6:08:12 AM

Dogpiling certainly doesn't make personal attacks any better. If anything, it could result in the whole thread being locked, as well as bans/warnings to those who went too far.

Taking into account, of course, that some people will deliberately rile up large groups of people for their amusement or to provoke a threadlock.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

Total posts: 573
Top