MarioWiki:Appeals/Archive
From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
| Previous appeals
|
|---|
Infyte
warning overturned
Further clarification confirmed that the edit was made in mistake and not in failure to heed to a previous advisory. As a note for the Infyte: kindly please make sure any information you come across, especially information pertaining to upcoming games, has been sourced. If you have to rely on memory or a friend's memory to source the information, you will need to claim this through something like an edit summary and at least add a citation needed template so further misunderstandings can be prevented. Thanks. 
Mario (talk) 12:47, April 26, 2025 (EDT)
Infyte
- Although I acknowledge that my edits were not officially confirmed, there were recent edits to the Mario Kart World image gallery indicating that the names of two character costumes had been officially confirmed to be “Explorer.” While I have been advised not to modify costume descriptions without official confirmation, I misinterpreted the newly added image gallery, which suggested that the costume names had been confirmed. I apologize for any misinformation I may have inadvertently disseminated. Considering that the character costumes were subsequently given to additional characters with confirmed names (e.g., Baby Luigi Work Crew and Baby Mario Work Crew), I believe that, despite not being officially confirmed by Nintendo, the costumes are essentially identical with only a simple recolor. Therefore, I find it somewhat arbitrary to impose restrictions on certain costumes. I do not intend to express any disrespect towards the moderators’ decisions. However, I believe that the warning issued is excessive, given that I was previously advised against adding unconfirmed names. This specific edit arose from a misunderstanding with the image gallery and the provided images, which implied that the names had been officially confirmed. I fully take responsibility for my actions and will no longer edit costume names without official confirmation. Nevertheless, I believe that the warning was overly harsh and should be reevaluated by moderators to fully comprehend my misunderstanding in this situation. Once again, I apologize for the unofficial edits and will refrain from editing costumes, regardless of their visibility. While I am committed to contributing to the wiki in any way possible, I feel that my efforts are being disregarded and devalued, which is disheartening. I aspire to become an administrator on the wiki, but I believe that the warning may hinder this goal. I appreciate the moderators’ efforts in preventing the spread of misinformation. However, the manner in which some moderators address me regarding these issues feels more like reprimanding than kindly requesting greater caution when making edits without sources. I do not intend to initiate any conflicts, but I believe that my feelings should be acknowledged and addressed by the moderators on the wiki. Thank you for considering my appeal, and I reiterate my apologies for the unofficial edits.
- (Response to issuer's question) Indeed, I can assist with that. After my edits were initially reverted, the Baby Mario (Work Crew) alternate character had been given a “conjectural name.” I subsequently modified the descriptions to align with the “conjectural name” format to prevent the dissemination of misinformation. I believe I only edited the characters with identical costumes to enhance the page’s visual appeal. However, I acknowledge my oversight in not fully comprehending the practice of “conjectural names.” Regardless, I fully take responsibility for my actions. If you believe the warning remains valid, I will accept it and move forward to prevent further disruptions to the wiki.
- (Response to issuer's question due to a miscommunication regarding the edit in question) I had the opportunity to speak with someone who had the chance to experience the Switch 2 at the Switch 2 event. When I asked about Mario Kart World, this individual referred to some of the alternate characters as “Baby Mario Work Crew, Baby Peach Sailor, etc.” This response was prompted by my question about the character alternate versions that were available in the demo for Mario Kart World. Since this individual had firsthand access to the game, I presumed that these character alternate versions were official. However, I am uncertain whether they were simply guessing the names or if they had directly observed them.
Mario jc
- I didn't realise you were basing the edit off of the gallery page, and I can see how it can be misinterpreted as being the "official" names. However, the warning was not only for that edit, but also another before it (which also followed my previous message(s) regarding the costume names). As it happened twice since then, I issued a warning per the warning policy, specifically for false information. Can you explain the first edit?
Pingouinsandwich
last warning stands
Regardless of what you were trying to do, if you get a warning, that should be taken as a sign to err on the side of caution and not try to continue the edits further, and discuss on the talk page first, like you were told. When Tails said "constantly", they were referring specifically to your back-and-forth edits that led to the first warning, and the latest edit added to that despite said warning. In addition, the revision as it was "long before" that you were trying to revert to was the result of your edit, so this still seemed like an attempt to force your edit to stay.
Pingouinsandwich
- Hello, I've come to contest my ‘last warning’. I think I deserve the first but not the second. I totally understand why my first edits were a problem as I very rarely use the ‘talk page’ on an article, so there you go. I'd also like to apologise if my words were a little too crude or inappropriate at times, although that's no reason. Now the problem is, I'm not writing this with the intention of annoying you, but I just don't understand why it was necessary to give me a final warning? As you can see on My first warning, Tails asks me to use the talk page instead of constantly editing the page, which I hear. So I took his comment into consideration, and later I saw that someone else was reversing my edits, so I opened a talk page and decided to explain the problem, then I put the page back the way it was before in order to avoid problems, because in fact, the page was like that long before and even after the edit war it was still like that. In fact, I was waiting for a response to my talk page so that I could fix the problem and get back on track. So why give me a ‘final warning’ when ‘Tails’ is telling me not to start reverting edits "constantly"? I know I'm French but I think I understand English all the same. I've only edited once so as not to restart a pointless war, my aim was not to start another war as Mario said in my talk page but to avoid starting a new one, I've followed absolutely every procedure given to me without constantly reversing edits, and despite that I still get a warning. Why give me a final warning when I followed everything I was told without disturbing the wiki? My edits have always been clean, I always use quality sources as I've already explained in the history and yet, once again, my edits are reversed without explanation by someone who probably doesn't understand my sources. So I just don't understand the point of my last warning when I've done everything I was told. I'm sorry to have bothered you. Have a nice day.
- (Response to issuer) I'm aware that you've had a lot of experience and that there must have been a lot of people who didn't respect the rules. However, I didn't want this war to happen any more, so you can see my good faith, which is why I created a talk page to remedy the problem. As I said, I didn't continue the war but I did stop it because, as you can see, I only made one edit. If there had been another, I would have waited for a reply on the talk page, sent a message on the discord server or spoken to the person in question on their talk page. At the beginning, when I received my first warning, I was annoyed because the person opposite was trying to spread disinformation by removing names that didn't need to be removed. But now I understand the problem and I apologise. It was a mistake that will teach me to bounce back. I'm really struggling to understand how I can be the only one to have had this warning when I'm the only one who tried to show good faith. I didn't do any abusive editing by removing names or war. So please try to understand my point of view. I understand my mistakes and I have only tried to do good. I'm sorry for the mistakes I've made because on the wiki I'm only good at putting French translations, I rarely do anything else and I wasn't aware that it was necessary to use the talk page for this purpose. So I'd like to apologise again and hope that you understand me and that you'll consider adding this warning.
Mario
- The warning system was put into place to make sure users don't repeat mistakes. From my experience, repeating an action you were told not to do, edit warring generally should get an escalation of the initial warning. When you were notified of edit warring and it seems that one user has apparently continued it, you should not have tried to revert the edit since that would risk another edit war (this incurred in me protecting the page). It especially came off as trying to continue it, and other admins notified the edit also interpreting it the same thing, which culminated in my decision. MaxTaylor should've been notified to not continue this edit war, but I assumed they were unaware of the prior edit war.
Wario876
last warning overturned
The outburst didn't warrant a last warning and came off more frustrated than rude, understandable given Sdman was specifically reverting many of your edits including ones that would be deemed valid. As for the comment on Talk:Kong, there was nothing that suggested you were speaking negatively about Sdman; you were simply explaining what had happened (that Sdman was reverting your edits and not responding to you). However, while we understand it can be frustrating, we stress that it's important to keep a level head about these things and that you try to be a little more calm in your messages next time.
Wario876
- I really don't think I was being rude when I tried to speak to Sdman213 about what they were doing, I was firm and put emphasis on my words because I had reached my breaking point and I wanted to talk things out because I feel like this user constantly reverts edits and doesn't always give good reasons for them. I didn’t even call them names and I said please too even saying that I wanted to honestly talk things out as I wanted to reach an agreement with this user so as to avoid any edit wars and conflicts in the future. However this user didn’t respond and I felt that user was stonewalling me, hence while maybe I should have not brought that up in the Kong talk page my intent was not to be rude, I was just saying something that seemed to be accurate as far as I could tell as I did wait for a response for hours but when I got no response that seemed to confirm that Sdman213 was stonewalling me especially when looking at the other people that tried to talk to this user on their talk page (and it seemed like I was being followed by this user all the time too) I acknowledge I have screwed up in the past but this time I really didn't exactly besides maybe what I had said on the talk page. So I hope you can understand at least that while I maybe didn't go about it the right way, I only wanted to resolve things with Sdman213 really]
Sparks
- You were given a last warning because you have had several instances of edit warring (and arguing) with users in the past, and you still continue to do so. Yelling is symbolized by words in all capital letters, which you included in your message to Sdman213. Additionally, the use of punctuation after only one word gives off the vibe of irritation. These are signs of discourtesy, and while you likely didn't intend to speak with that kind of tone, there are still rules to follow. You are, however, not excused from outright bringing up Sdman213 in a negative way on Kong's talk page. You only needed to bring up the issue without anyone involved.
Colin's world 3 YT
warning stands
Warning is indicative of overall repeated, disruptive behavior that has not been corrected, rather than an indictment towards a singular incident. It shall remain as part of official records. 
Xiahou Ba(the Nasty Warrior) 21:44, September 27, 2025 (EDT)
User talk:Colin's world 3 YT#Minimodding
Colin's world 3 YT
- I'm fully aware my actions were wrong, but I don't feel like it deserved a warning. The first point in the reminder is about how I gave inactive users warnings, which I have already been reminded for. The second point is about how I tried to post on Mariowiki:Appeals, when I neither posted the warning nor recieved that, which I won't do again. Also, it seems like this warning has the vibes of "sending any warnings is minimodding" which is incorrect.
Camwoodstock
- You received a reminder for these actions previously, and yet continued to nag inactive users over them. That's... Why it was increased to a warning, rather than remaining a reminder. And, issuing false warnings when you, yourself, are not staff, is in fact mini-modding. While in some scenarios (namely, in extremely clear-cut cases of misconduct, such as brazen edit warring), registered users have the right to warn other registered users, the warnings given were not proper uses (mostly targeting inactive users over things that would warrant, at most, a reminder, not a direct warning in the first place), and left a mess for staff to clean up. That's literally part of the definition of it. If you have a concern about another user, it should be reported to the staff, and we will handle it from there. The Warning template is for the use of staff, to keep track of officially-issued (or at least officially-backed) warnings against users--not something for ordinary users to thrust onto others the first moment they suspect misconduct.
