Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
Well, I'd like to get a response from a mod, but if there really is no rule about it, I'd strongly recommend that one be added. As my second example shows, this practice has the potential to cause major damage, not to mention that certain variants can go from trolling to phishing, maybe even malware. I may not be a mod myself, but if I was, I'd probably ban any troper who tried to use this tactic on that kind of scale. Of course, the rickroll version would probably just result in a friendly "knock it off" warning, considering they're basically invoking said meme. But if the link results in major consequences for the victim, I may just delete the offender's entire account outright.Wait...
Edited by Gofastmike^I agree.
A link that claims to go to the TV Tropes Rickroll page but instead links to an actual Rickroll video would be a Sinkhole, but linking to porn is absolutely forbidden.
Also, I've seen mods say that they can't delete accounts.
Edited by GastonRabbit You can't just say "perchance".Yeah, I don't think it's inherently against the rules; the malicious uses of it already fall under other rules.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallSo, long story short: My rickroll link doesn't count, but variants that are straight-up bad do? That... actually seems fair. Most memes aren't exactly mean unless used in certain ways, so why would a rickroll be counted the same as malware just because they're set off in the same way?
Also, minor question: Who clicked on the example link to see if it actually worked?
Edited by GofastmikeWell, if it's context-dependent, my rickroll link still doesn't count because it's basically a self-demonstrating example: A textbook rickroll that's disguised as a rickroll-related article. Falling for it is just part of the territory. Doubly so if the entire conversation was re: rickroll, or even related memes.
I get it if just firing off a rickroll in general in an improper setting would count as dickish anyhow, but I digress. What I'm understanding is that as long as it isn't overtly disruptive, it doesn't matter that one link is disguised as another, at least on TV Tropes. Heck, you could probably post a link to a video on Twitch that actually leads to the exact same video on YouTube without too much backlash.
Edited by GofastmikeIsn't this a form of Sinkhole? That means the rules against sinkholing should apply. Also, while Administrivia.Weblinks Are Not Examples doesn't address this directly, the reasoning there is relevant.
Edited by GnomeTitanMod speaking: Potholes should not be used in deceptive ways anywhere on the wiki. That's just common courtesy. Regarding this specific situation: Potholes made to look like an on-site link should never redirect the user to an off-site link. I don't care if you think you're being funny. The Rickroll meme is dated and potentially harmful in some situations. (Imagine a user browsing the site at work or school clicking on it while their speakers are on.)
Obviously, links, in any format, to porn, malware, or other malicious sites should be reported as spam and the user(s) responsible will be banned.
Edited by Fighteer "It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"So basically, fake links are not allowed, period? That simplifies things. This here is why I specifically asked for a mod in my first reply. Everything up to this point appeared to be either ambiguously incomplete, or simply speculation. But now that we have a concrete fact in the mix, I think I can close this discussion by summing it up as "No, fake links aren't allowed."
Edited by Gofastmike^ Pretty much. The important part is not even Rule of Funny excuses this because it's potentially very harmful.
I think this can be closed, personally.

What I'm referring to is the (ab)use of the [[url]] system (or an equivalent like Google's hyperlinks, or Steam's [url]HTML Tags[/url]) to make one link lead to another as a form of trolling. As an example, https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/JustForFun/Rickroll
appears to link to JustForFun.Rickroll, but instead leads to the video itself.note A more extreme example is where you're at work, on your work computer, when a coworker sends you an email saying that they need help with a contract they've put on Google Docs. The link appears legit, but when you click on it, it instead leads to a XXX dark-web porn-site that usually sets off the trackers in the wi-fi. Worst case scenario, you get fired, while the trollish coworker gets away scot free.
What I want to know are the policies regarding stuff like this, just out of curiosity.
Edited by Gofastmike