MarioWiki:Appeals/Archive
| 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.
Rendumguy
warning stands
The timing of Rendumguy's warning is inappropriate. At that point, even if an edit war was taking place, it stopped a month ago (which took place August 20), and, rather than issue a warning (which was today September 13), a civil talk page discussion should've been made, but further disruption was caused through this misjudgement. The last warning stays, per our rule on MarioWiki:Warning policy for abusing warning privileges, and given Rendumguy's record of receiving several prior warnings for similar disruptive behavior. Please be more careful, and please assume good faith with other users, including Wandering Poplin and Camwoodstock. Work something out. Mario (talk) 01:24, September 14, 2026 (UTC)
Rendumguy
- Last warning justification is false, the edit war was from August 20th less than a month ago. The MarioWiki:Warning policy states:
- Q: I saw that someone broke the rules a while ago, but no one gave them a warning for it. Should I give them a warning now?
- A: No. If it's no longer an issue, there is no point bringing it up weeks, months or even years later, especially if the user has gone inactive in the meantime. In fact, if a warning is issued for old offences, it is considered invalid and may be removed on sight by the admins.
I warned them because they will revert edits repeatedly even without accounting for changes in new edits to appease their issues, without giving any explanation. An admin agreed with them and told me to stop or face repercussions because they thought the edit was terrible, so I did.
They've done this multiple times, they didn't do it on the Princess Lipid page but when I changed something back to edit back in the word "strange" that I took out, they immediately jumped on to revert it, even when it existed long before I edited the page and I placed it back in to make it more like how it used to be.
This was not the reason for the warning, but it is an example of combatative edits that made me reevaluate the Blizzaurus edits.
"No. If it's no longer an issue, there is no point bringing it up weeks, months or even years later, especially if the user has gone inactive in the meantime."
The user's behavior is an ongoing issue and they are not inactive.
- Furthermore, none of these are arguments that the user warned did not participate in an edit war. Multiple times on multiple occasions they would revert edits with no prompting and start an edit war back and forth.
- This includes, Hisstocrat, which they were given a "friendly reminder" for edit warning in. Terrormisu, Blizzaurus, and Jojora.
- Regardless of if this person believes I "started" the edit war, the user warned engaged in edit warring. That is a fact.
- Putting aside the false claim of the warning, the warning, true or not, does not fall in line with *any* of the listed qualifiers of a "Last Warning"
- Level three offenses
- Level three offenses are high level offenses and given through the last warning template. Infractions that deserve a last warning template include:
- Minor vandalism (like capitalizing all words, removing information for no reason, adding comments to an article, etc.)
Nope.
- Impersonating another user
Nope.
- Falsely claiming to be an admin
Nope.
- Creating sockpuppets*
Nope.
- Undermining admin authority*
Nope, an admin never stated "you cannot put a warning on this user's page, it is settled fact by the admins that they didn't edit war.". This is not "undermining admin authority".
Flaming, spamming on user talk pages, and making disruptive comments towards other users
Spamming and making disruptive comments towards other users are very clearly false, so I assume the "Last Warning" was used because the warner considers a "false warning" (which it *isn't*, by any stretch), to be "flaming", but in any sense of the word that's completely wrong:
"Flaming is the act of posting insults, often including profanity or other offensive language, on the Internet.[1] Flaming emerges from the anonymity that Internet forums provide for users, which allows them to act more aggressively.[2] Anonymity can lead to disinhibition, which results in the swearing, offensive, and hostile language characteristic of flaming. Lack of social cues, less accountability of face-to-face communications, textual mediation, and deindividualization are also likely factors.[3] Deliberate flaming is carried out by individuals known as flamers, which are specifically motivated to incite flaming.[4] These users specialize in flaming and target specific aspects of a controversial conversation"
- The warning I gave does not in any sense count as flaming, there is not a single derogatory thing about it. I posted only once on this user's page, it does not count as spam. Many of the criticisms listed here, no signature, the warning being poorly written, are unrelated to a Last Warning. I gave a genuine warning for something the user was already reminded of, that's not flaming.
"Abuse of warning privileges for the sake of trying to "get back" at a user over something almost a third of a year ago is a fairly high offense."
This is the thesis of the Last Warning here, but the statement is flawed and based on false logic, as the premise is that the issue was a third of a year ago, assumes this is "getting back" at a user when they were already reminded of edit warring, and if their claims were true, this isn't even a "fairly high offense", regardless, none of the "Last Warning" rules mention anything about this, and this user was reminded of this behavior before.
I believe the fact that the Last Warning was based on such an obscenely incorrect time period, ignored the fact that the user I warned was already reminded of edit warring before (https://www.mariowiki.com/User_talk:Wandering_Poplin), and doesn't follow the same standards listed on the Last Warning sections mean it should be removed. This warning is as flawed as the warner complains mine is.
Putting aside that they did in fact start edit warring first in the case of Blizzaurus, where even after I fixed the issue with my edit they removed it without any explanation, you didn't explain how this user didn't edit war. Is it not edit warring if you "didn't start it"?
And if it's not flaming, then literally what "Last Warning" offense did I even commit?
Level three offenses:
- Minor vandalism (like capitalizing all words, removing information for no reason, adding comments to an article, etc.)
- Impersonating another user
- Falsely claiming to be an admin
- Creating sockpuppets*
- Undermining admin authority*
- Flaming, spamming on user talk pages, and making disruptive comments towards other users
It wasn't vandalism, it wasn't impersonation, it wasn't falsely claiming to be an admin, it wasn't creating a sockpuppet, it wasn't undermining admin authority, you admit it wasn't flaming, it wasn't spamming since I posted on that user's page a total of one time, and I would not consider a warning, even if you consider if unjustified, to be a "disruptive comment", a disruptive comment is an insult, something than derails the conversation, an ad hominem attack.
There is nothing here, not a single justification for your Last Warning, your original Warning was all wrong to begin with because you messed up the date and it was entirely dependent on the "four months" that didn't pass between the incident and the warning.
They only reason you gave a Last Warning is, like you accuse me, of being petty. Your Last Warning doesn't follow any of the rules of what a Last Warning should be for, and you don't even follow your own logic because your warning had an error in it as its big smoking gun. (in response)
Camwoodstock
- On the Blizzaurus page, you are the one who started that edit war by unreverting an removed edit of yours without any prior discussion or attempt to do so. This much is evident from looking at the edit history. The same applies to Terrormisu and Hisstocrat, which are the same pages whose edit wars got you initially warned in the first place. The edit on Jojora is entirely irrelevant, as it was a singular edit in the first place. Additionally, the formatting of this appeal is bordering on unreadable. These are all meant to be bullet-pointed, singular exchanges; why are there 16 of them, some of which are nested despite being singular entries, and 17 distinct paragraphs, some of which break formatting, and the entire thing visibly breaking the syntax highlighter for our reply? Much of which is spent trying to define and single-in on the word "flaming", which was never once mentioned in the original warning in the first place.
- Literally above the list of offenses, it states "each time the offense is repeated, the severity of the warning issued is increased to the next level." The argument of "I made zero level-three offenses" isn't much of one when the warning was for multiple level two offenses; namely, participating in edit wars and abusing warning privileges (a level two offense), after having already been warned for participating in edit wars (also a level two offense). Additionally, your response was, again, not formatted correctly, and in this case, we genuinely cannot repair it beyond a hacky fix for it... (in response)
