MarioWiki:Appeals/Archive

From the Super Mario Wiki
All completed appeals are archived here. Please add archived appeals to the bottom of the page.
Previous cases


Ultimate Mr. L

warning overturned
The warning will be overturned for this case only as the particular wording of {{Reminder}} is in Ultimate Mr. L's advantage; however, the template will be edited to prevent this from ever being an excuse again.

Ultimate Mr. L

  • The Warning I am appealing can be found in the middle of the linked section of my talk page. I am not appealing the reminder at the top.Wildgoosespeeder (Talk) gave the warning because I was forgetting to categorize images. At first I thought I deserved it because it was getting annoying for him, but then I realized that reminders say, and I quote, If the action continues deliberately, then a warning will be issued. I was not deliberately forgetting to categorize those images. It was all accidental. If I'm not doing it on purpose, should a warning be issued?

Wildgoosespeeder

  • This whole situation is awkward. I like to think of the warning as trying to enforce the rules more so than punishing the user. This is the best way I could do that without having sysop powers. I used it after talking with him several times (in between {{imagecategory-reminder}} and {{warning}}) and he still failed to follow policy. Initially, I tried to give some leeway before issuing {{warning}} because he was responding and being polite about it.

Topmaniac

reminder stands
Unless it's flaming or vandalism, removing comments is a warnable offense. Your talk page is meant to be a record of your editing and conversational history: removing comments just to pretend that it never happened is unacceptable.

Topmaniac

  • [I normally wouldn't remove comments from my page, particularly after being reminded. However, I didn't want people to see that I had issues with "vandalizing" a page, so I really wanted to eliminate that part. I felt like there was enough justification to delete that comment.]

The RPG Gamer

  • He removed Alex95 (talk)'s informal message to him he has a history of removing comments and even an official reminder before this one, this is the third time this has happened and I reminded him about this once before comments aren't allowed to be removed either way and I couldn't have made myself more clear so the reminder should stay.

Topmaniac

last warning stands
The offense called for a last warning: you have previously received a reminder, warning, and an informal message from an administrator about editing BJAODN content. Furthermore, you deliberately ignored another user's reversion after you changed the content yet again.

Topmaniac

  • I know I have been told not to add unnecessary comments to the BJAODN, but I feel that my last two additions to the Items articles added to the humor of the overall articles. With that said, I do understand that I have been told not to edit that article, however, I do not think it deserves a last warning. If this warning is not removed altogether, I would like it to at least be downgraded to a normal warning.

Alex95

  • Whelp, I can definitely say that I called this. Your two edits that you feel "added to the humor of the article" were 1) placed in a way that made it look like is was part of the original edit and 2) unnecessary comments.

Aside from the that, the Last Warning was given because you have been told not to add irrelevant comments to the pages, and yet, you continued to do so. So not only was the Last Warning given because of the comments, it was given due to sheer incompetence and failure to heed the advice of others.


The RPG Gamer

reminder overturned
There is no strict preference about using one mark-up over the other, and does not call for an official warning template. It is perfectly acceptable to use the HTML tags over the typical markups, if users find it easier to keep track of the page's coding in that way.

The RPG Gamer

I've never been reminded that using HTML wasn't allowed. Using the MediaWiki wasn't available when putting a file description for a new upload, Wildgoosespeeder then gives me a reminder for this. Last time I checked, those templates are only supposed to be for when the user doesn't stop the action after being informed about it. This was the first time I've ever been told so I personally think it's unjustified. I wasn't intentionally doing it I just didn't see the MediaWiki one available and I've not been reminded at all. Should've a reminder be issued for this? They weren't available while uploading.

Wildgoosespeeder

It's not a {{warning}} or {{lastwarn}}. Also, you have a record of repeated warnings so this this not really a big deal in comparison. You have been here long enough to know the typical markups used.


Toadette the Achiever

reminder overturned
The user wasn't clearly edit sniping: with the small time frame between edits, it's entirely possible that two users happened to be archiving the proposal at the same time, especially being so shortly after the deadline. As well as this, first-time breaches of the courtesy policy should be dealt with informally, rather than through official warning templates.

Toadette the Achiever

  • I know that edit sniping means performing an action before the person meant to perform the action can even do anything. To be honest, I don't think it was obvious enough that Wildgoosespeeder was trying to archive his latest proposal at the time I was trying to archive it as well. Even if it actually was, there were many informal ways he could have addressed the situation, rather than jumping straight to a Reminder.
P.S.: From now on, when archiving appeals, please use the AppealOutcome template to address the outcome. This proposal dictates it.

Wildgoosespeeder

I saw the edit conflict dialog with the template already in place linking to my archived proposal. I just got done moving my proposal. Ran into some trouble with the link, so it was taking longer than usual to commit my edit. The edit that the user did was almost 9 hours between edits.


Wildgoosespeeder

reminder overturned
Text can appear slightly different from browser to browser: it was just unlucky that it appeared a couple of pixels too long. In future, users should have a bit more leniency on such a... small issue.

User talk:Wildgoosespeeder#Signature

Wildgoosespeeder

I made sure that my signature wasn't in violation when I first set it up. Here's what I was able to validate for User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig:

Tests {{sigbox}} Sigbox.svg
Internet Explorer 11 Check mark.svg Check mark.svg
Google Chrome X mark.svg Check mark.svg

MarioMario456

[NO COMMENT]


Wildgoosespeeder

reminder overturned
The Aboutfile template itself says its usage is optional. Someone hasn't read the instructions.

Wildgoosespeeder

  • {{aboutfile-reminder}} is for people that have {{aboutfile}} inserted, but never filled out from the default when Special:Upload is accessed or never corrected within a reasonable amount of time by the uploader. It is not required to have the template inserted but it is recommended. In fact, there was an abandoned project related to it. I have been doing this for a long time.

MarioMario456

  • Sometimes, the contributor forgots to add the {{aboutfile}} template.

Marshal Dan Troop

warning overturned
A warning isn't necessary if the user was already blocked for the same incident, let alone one that occurred two years prior.

Marshal Dan Troop

  • So here we are me Marshal Dan Troop appealing a warning I got 6 years ago for an action I did 8 years ago what a glorious country. On April 4th 2011 I was given a warning by DKPetey99 for saying Fuck you to Stooben Rooben on September 13th 2009. Now normally this would be a valid warning since that would be flaming. However, I feel the warining isn't valid because firstly the incident happened almost 2 years prior to receiving the warining which I feel like is a bit to long. And for the fact that I was actually blocked for said action by my personal wiki hero Time Q for flaming that same day. And I feel that you can't really recieve a warning for an action you were blocked for because I was already punished for said action. Because of these reasons I feel that my warning should be removed because I don't think it's really valid.

DKPetey99

  • [NO COMMENT]

BBQ Turtle

last warning overturned
The admins have decided to just remove it altogether, as the entire situation was inflated more than it should've. I guess you blew it this time.

BBQ Turtle

  • I feel that the last warning was unnecessary because what I did I could only find listed as a level 2 offence, which would mean that it does not need to be given a last warning, but only a warning. I was confused as to whether we could delete the comments or not, as at the end of my welcome message it said that we could delete it, and after I did it once, I did not receive any reminders or comments saying you should not do this, just the last warning. I don't feel that it is fair to be instantly issued this warning, and I would never do it again, even if I had only received a reminder. It is, at worst, a level 2 offence, which only warrants a warning, and as I only did it once, I would like to have the last warning removed, or least downgraded to a warning, please.

Owencrazyboy9

  • Now thinking through it, I think the last warning was not necessary. You did stop after getting issued the reminder and last warning, too. For now, it be best to either change it into a warning or have it removed altogether.

Raymond1922A

warning amended
Calling out offensive names is unacceptable in any circumstance, but a Warning was too harsh for the action seeing as this was their first courtesy breach. It will be changed to a Reminder.

Raymond1922A

  • My comment on Talk:Hotaru was simply a joke meant to make a point about the problems of using Japanese words. I did not mean to call any user on this site a baka or assume bad faith.

User talk:Raymond1922A#Warning

Baby Luigi

  • Regardless if it was a joke, which I find to be frankly rude, out of nowhere, and uncalled for, calling other users a "fool" or "idiot" in Japanese for following established policy guidelines is not acceptable behavior. Also, I did took offense to your wording of saying that it's not "kawaii", because I felt like you're also stereotyping some types people who sometimes pepper Japanese in their writings. I don't think this type of condescension is very respectful. While it is possible that I was too heavy-handed with handing out warning, I still think you should receive at least an official reminder for your behavior.

TheRaoul1992

warning stands
The warning remains because you've been told this before. The template shouldn't be removed directly after a game is released. However, there is currently a proposal that is meant to decide exactly how long to wait.

TheRaoul1992

When I edit a page, I know what I'm doing, if I changed this, it's because the game was released.

FanOfYoshi

This warning was undeserved, I respected the rules.


Owencrazyboy9

warning stands
You've had this problem before, several times. "Harsher consequences" is rather condescending, and the problem can be explained without resorting to reporting them. In all honesty, because you've been blocked for this behavior before, another block should've been issued, but the warning was already applied. Watch yourself.

Owencrazyboy9

  • OK, what the actual heck? I go ahead and let a user know about an incident that was going on for a few weeks now (concerning the Paper Mario bestiary page, if you were wondering) and all of a sudden, I get a random warning? Every other time I let users know about something (like reminding other users to use italics for game titles, correcting their mistakes or trying to get them to stop offences before they get in more trouble), I never ever received a Warning for it. And now I get punished because I'm doing what I'm supposed to be doing? The Warning says I'm "supposedly" assuming bad faith. Not true. I'm just telling them about there being consequences if they don't follow the rules. And apparently the "harsher consequences I have no means of enforcing?" Well, I was implying the administrators who "can" enact harsher consequences, but you completely neglected to mention that the general user "can" give other users warnings, last warnings and/or reminders. And I had no idea that the edit in question that caused this whole thing contradicted the reversion I put upon it. I only realized it was a contradiction after I saved that edit and sent the user a reminder. People can and do make mistakes often, but there's no way this mistake I only realized after the edit reversion and user reminder is worth being punished for with a warning. In my honest opinion, I think the warning deserves to go, because I did nothing wrong in this case. What I did was try to let the user know about the incident on a talk page and imply that that user might get in trouble if this keeps up, only for me to then realized I botched it up because I had no idea what I was doing. There's no way this could have escalated into a warning only because I sometimes screw up when I'm doing something I'm supposed to be doing on an occasional basis.

Lord Grammaticus

  • The thing about that is, as your talk page shows, you've been told before about unnecessary tones and attitudes towards other editors multiple times before, especially if it involves them undoing or altering your edits in some manner. And I'd just talked to you before about hanging the threat of a block over someone's head when it's not even clear they were necessarily doing something blockworthy to begin with.
"I'm just telling them about there being consequences if they don't follow the rules." ...while curiously neglecting to mention the rule in question. "Well, I was implying the administrators who "can" enact harsher consequences, but you completely neglected to mention that the general user "can" give other users warnings, last warnings and/or reminders." Yes, I left that out, because I felt those would have been unwarranted.
My entire thing is, even if I take you at face value, the closest rule RickTommy's edit could've come close to breaking is edit warring, and that's a strong maybe on the matter. And assuming that IS the case, why not discuss it with them on the article's talk page or their own talk page, rather than leaving a message insinuating that your spelling is the only possible spelling, and that attempting to posit otherwise would result in "harsher consequences"? It's that "my way or the highway" tone in particular - which, AGAIN, I noticed you have been told about multiple times previously - that, in my opinion, prompted and warranted the warning.