MarioWiki:Appeals/Archive 2

From the Super Mario Wiki
All completed appeals are archived here. This page is protected to maintain the discussion as was.
Previous cases


BabyLuigiOnFire

reminder overturned
Users get a week to fix their sigs before any punitive action is taken after the initial {{Sigfix}} is administered.

BabyLuigiOnFire

  • Walkazo told me that I was given at least a week to fix my signature after I received the the sigfix template, yet ZombieBros. didn't give me enough time to consider and think what to change in my signature. I hadn't gotten an ok yet at the time, but after discussing it with Walkazo, I'll make modifications to my signature.

The Zombie Bros.

  • [NO COMMENT]

Mario7

last warning amended
Reverting admin edits is not actually breaking rules in and of itself, however this user had been repeatedly spoken to about making edits like the one in question, and has been issued a regular Warning for that in place of the Last Warning.

Mario7

  • I undid one edit from an administrator on this page because my edit was undone by YoshiKong because s/he said that it was unconfirmed whether this world would make an appearance in New Super Luigi U. Since a video from GameXplain and the level count showed that Peach's Castle would be in NSLU, I put the table back in. After this, I got a Final Warning from Pinkie Pie
  • According to this, I did not commit a level three offence

Pinkie Pie

  • Oh, well then. The admins should appeal the last warning. My mistake.

The Chain Chomp

warning stands
Antagonizing other users is not allowed, and being new is no excuse: the fact that you shouldn't be rude should be a given (besides, even after the initial warning, the user continued being confrontational and had to be warned again).

The Chain Chomp

  • I have one. KP tried to snitch on me by demanding that paralemmy appeal his warning that i gave him not realizing that his warning on baby luigi's page is permanent until baby luigi takes action. So i gave him a last warn for abusing warning privleges, but them KP chimes in and says that I'M abusing it. That should not be the case, and i deserve more leniency because i do not speak english well and I am just a new guy here.
  • KP, snitch is a person who tells on someone for something very minor in hopes of getting them in trouble. I was very annoyed at the time but have calmed down now so hopefully you can understand my remorse and regrets.

KP

  • I do not know the meaning of snitch, nor did I demand that Paralemmy appeal his warning. Making disruptive comments toward other users falls in the level THREE punishments. I was nice for not giving him a last warning. Comments like "You little snitch" are rude and inappropriate and always lead to a warning being issued. I also think that The Chain Chomp's last comment is invalid. New users should follow the policy just like the old ones, and language knowledge does not matter at all.

Baby Luigi

warning overturned
Censored swears in edit summaries aren't against rules as long as the implied swearing isn't at someone else. If the other user had a problem with it, they should have sent an informal message, rather than jumping straight to a Warning.

Baby Luigi

  • This is clearly a case of living by the rules rather than learning by them. While it IS true that I swear, I censor ---- like this, you know? This is ----ing going by the rules right? I never EVER type out the words fully because I can't type it out myself. I still don't like swearing too much, but sometimes, the expletive is enough to express my strong feelings. It's in my mind, but I can't type it out. I'm pretty sure "-----ing" the words is fine as no one can see it. Hell, I've seen less lenient swears than me. I'm pretty lenient. With no prior comment to my warning, I think my warning is wholly unfair and undeserved.

ParaLemmy1234

  • [NO COMMENT]

Mario

warning overturned
This warning makes no sense. An informal message and actually specifying what's the matter would have been better.

Mario

  • ParaLemmy1234 has issued me a warning for "adding inappropriate messages on article talk pages". I have no idea how I got this warning, so I rummaged through my contributions, and I guess my little jesting with YoshiKong on Talk:Captain Toad was the case? Or maybe it was an offhand comment I somehow made 3 years ago? The user hasn't specified, and I don't think I made a single "inappropriate" comment on article talk pages. Even if the warning is valid, ParaLemmy1234 should also consider my contributions, that I'm a good user and not a blatant vandal. Since that's the case, he should tell me politely (and specifying specifically) instead of jumping in and slapping me with this warning. This warning is as random as lightning and as undeserved like trading stars from landing on a Fortune Space.

ParaLemmy1234

  • [NO COMMENT]

Pinkie Pie

reminder stands
The user was blocked, so it's a moot point now.

Pinkie Pie

  • OK, so I got this reminder for edit warring on his page. Man, edit warring are suppose to happen when we revert 3 edits in 24 hours. This reminder is unnecessary.
  • According to this, I did not do it three times.

TrickyMario7654

  • You did it three times

Viper26

reminder overturned
The user complied with the message before removing it, and they were likely unaware of the rule against removing legit comments. An informal reminder would've been better, since this was their first offense, and it wasn't done with malicious intent.

Viper26

KP posted a reminder about removing a talk page post that is about removing a section I deleted after seeing the post. KP re did the talk page post about removing a section on the user page and gave a reminder. Epic Rosalina thinks the reminder is too weak and should be given if I did this multiple times. He thinks I should go here and report the case.

KP

Removing other users comments falls in the level two offenses in the Warning Policy, as does undermining admin authority, which he did by undoing Turboo's edit. I gave him a reminder for this and I think it is issued fairly. Also, Epic Rosalina is not all-knowing, and you should really give a reason yourself when appealing.

Comments

Yeah that's right. The reminder was issued fairly, but I followed Epic Rosalina's decision. - Viper26 (talk)


BossBass

warning overturned
This seemed to be a legitimate copy-paste accident on the user's part, since the spam was just part of another article's text. However, it's still important to use the preview button before editing to avoid things like this in the future.

BossBass

Epic Rosalina

  • Alright, I'm sorry I falsely accused you, you must've been editing from a mobile device which can cause pages to be blanked out like that. I am perfectly fine with the warning being removed.

TrickyMario7654

last warning stands
All points made in the warning were valid, and the user's actions couldn't just be overturned. The user was also tempblocked, so it's a moot point now.

TrickyMario7654

  • Look I'm sorry for reverting the edits and posting those photos.
  • Objection I will undo them also how long will the block go for?
  • Overturn the block?

Time Turner

  • Even if you're sorry, this is far from your first infraction. The reasons behind the warning are still valid.
  • After a warning is issued, it stays there permanently unless it's successfully appealed. Regardless of what of you do now, it's already been done.
  • He's been banned, so... it's kind of a moot point?

Pwwnd123

warning stands
The user was repeatedly told to stop but kept doing it anyway, and went as far as insulting other people over it, both directly and in an edit summary. Behavior like this is completely unacceptable, and the warning stands.

Pwwnd123

  • Because I modernized things in the Hotel Mario article

Time Turner

  • You repeatedly edit warred with users, despite multiple instances of being told not to do it, and you insulted users twice. It seems fair to me.

Mario

reminder overturned
The swearing wasn't malicious or directed towards anyone, and while it wasn't a good idea, a Reminder was an overreaction.

Mario

  • Epic Rosalina has given me a reminder for swearing in edit summaries (which I did). Referring to the rules, "[t]he occasional use of profanity is allowed as long as it is not directed at another user, but it should generally be avoided." Not only are my swears extremely occasional, it is not referring to any user; my swearing was directed at the abhorrently poor quality of the article. Epic Rosalina cites an invalid precedent (Ashley and Red got a reminder for swearing, but the swearing is directly at a user). The reminder I received, not only is it given out unfairly, may also set precedents for other people to give out reminders for invalid reasons. In one case, for instance, one user gave a reminder/warning to another user for "undoing an admin's edit", which is an invalid reason in any case, but from time to time, other users think it is okay to give reminders solely on that because it somebody has done it before.

    I've tried to argue with Epic Rosalina about why the reminder is not valid, but I haven't gotten a rebuttal yet, so I'm appealing this reminder. After all, swearing doesn't really add to anything, but again, warnings and blocks are issued because users are participating in actions that aren't helpful to this wiki.

Epic Rosalina

  • [NO COMMENT]

Baby Luigi

warning overturned
Both users were at fault for edit warring, but Mario7's edits were in the wrong and Baby Luigi tried to explain as much with the edit summaries, and she certainly wasn't creating "obvious hoaxes".

Baby Luigi

  • Just look at the recent revision history of this. I've clearly gave my reasoning for undoing his edit, yet Mario7 just undos MY edits for absolutely no reason whatsoever, other than "ummmm" and one reason, which I debunked. Then, he accuses me of "making obvious hoaxes" which is actually an insult for someone who has obviously played the game and not just looked at footage (I broke my back for a freaking Gold Glider if that's not proof enough that I played the game for QUITE some time. And then....I get this...WARNING...for undoing his edits even though I was clear and blunt with my revision, and I had to tell him to stop it or he'll get a warning for it.

Mario7

  • I would just like to request some time before this appeal gets "judged," as I need to write both my oppose for this as well as my argument for another warning (regarding the same subject). Thanks!

Pwwnd123

reminder overturned
The swearing wasn't malicious or directed towards anyone, and while it wasn't a good idea, a Reminder was an overreaction.

Pwwnd123

  • Stonehill gave me a reminder about swearing which I did do slightly. It wasn't targeted towards anybody. According to the rules "the occasional use of profanity is allowed as long as it is not directed at another user, but it should generally be avoided.". I wasn't even trying to over do it like how the AVGN does in his videos. AVGN style swearing is if you do it 20 times or more.I don't do it all the time.

Stonehill

  • I just wanted to remind you. I mean, what if you unintentionally cursed in front of another user? By then, you would have a warning, right? Oops, I must've used the wrong template. Sorry, I'll remove that template.

Randombob-omb4761

reminder overturned
Very unnecessary.

Randombob-omb4761

  • I have not been editing userspace so often the last 3 months, I have over 1,000 mainspace edits and only 300 userspace edits. I don't understand why I got a userspace warning for that. It should be appealed. ~~ Boo4761

Joseph

  • Sorry' but I saw you had lots of edits to your user page. So I gave it to you. Sorry about that. Please forgive' I'm new.

Stonehill

reminder overturned
It wasn't obvious that Viper26 was in the middle of an editing project, and even if it was, first-time Courtesy offences should be dealt with informally: Reminders are for major breaches or repeat offences.

Stonehill

  • Even though I would do the same without the Reminder, and I know you posted that plan in January and would understand myself, you never made it as clear as possible. In order to prevent edit sniping in the first place, you absolutely NEED to state what you're planning as "loud and clear" as possible! Plus, planning something and then abandoning it for 5 days is just allowing another user to take over, which doesn't necessarily count as edit sniping.

Viper26

  • I posted that I was creating the Mario Party 10 minigames back in January or so on my userpage. So what you did is edit sniping, a form of discourteous behavior, which is also a level two offense. I'm also just waiting for enough info on the games, and an image I can easily get off of IGN, but I think I can do it now.

Bazooka Mario

warning overturned
Reverting undeniably bad edits repeatedly isn't edit warring, it's quality control, especially when you do contact the other editor via talk page: if they refuse to listen, they're the one warring, and the only one deserving of a Warning.

Bazooka Mario

  • I've been giving this warning for edit warring on the Kart page. Except Joey2871 (talk) has been making blatantly incorrect and nonsense edits to the Luigi image on the page, stating that he's driving "his brother's kart" rather than the "Standard Kart". I've already told him to knock it off and bring it into the talk page if he disagrees. But he played victim and accused me of bad faith and edit warring and continued to make these edits. He also has a given history of being a disruptive influence on Talk:Badwagon (I suspected he was this I.P. due to the same rude, juvenile, and defiant behavior while also trying to guilt-trip and play victim to people that chewed him out; he also lied while undermining admin authority). Given this unacceptable conduct, Joey2871 is in absolutely no position to give me a warning. In fact, he's the one who deserves the warning or even a block at this point.

Joey2871

  • [NO COMMENT]

Tailikku1

warning overturned
Tailikku1's translations were perfectly fine for the most part: this is just another example of Goolgenerade being unnecessarily caustic towards him.

http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATailikku1&diff=1894701&oldid=1891154

Tailikku1

  • He's been doing this to me for months.

Goolgenerade

[NO COMMENT]


Roy Koopa (talk)

warning overturned
Telling someone they're breaking rules is not vandalizing their talk page in any way: this warning was a hugely inappropriate overreaction.

Roy Koopa

  • I'm sorry, but this warning is ridiculous. I tell him he's breaking a rule, and here he comes slapping a warning on me. He already broke a rule by giving a warning to an admin (see his talk page) and I talked to him about a seemingly needless image revert as well as the image in his sig. I told him that it was too big, and he comes back and calls me an a**hole. Rulebreaker? Yes, he basically flamed me. Then he throws a warning at me for vandalizing his talk page. Like, what did I do that earned me this? If anyone deserves a warning, it's him, not me. I'd like to also add that he has been a user for less than 24 hours, whereas I have a history of more than three years.

MarioMario456

  • [NO COMMENT]

Fawful's Minion (talk)

warning stands
Although posting on talk pages of inactive users is not explicitly disallowed according to the policy pages, you did ignore advice from other users to not continue conversations which are outdated or no longer valid. Your comments were reverted for this reason, and because they added no constructive input to the page. Less than a week later, yet again you replied to old comments after other users had told you not to. Coupled with the fact that you have accumulated a large amount of other Reminders and Warnings before this one, the Warning you are appealing will stand.

Fawful's Minion

  • What did I do to deserve this warning, all I did was just talk to a few inactive users and here comes BabyLuigiOnFire. She just gives me a warning for no good reason. It isn't mentioned anywhere in neither The Courtesy Policy nor the The Warning Policy I checked both of them thrice and there is no mention saying you cannot message the inactive, but it does say that you cannot remove any comments even if the don't contribute as said on Section 10 of the Courtesy Policy the only comments you can delete are flames, vandalism, and mine were none of the above. And she just gives me a warning for that. Seriously a warning was way too out of line. I actually have seen quite a few users do this and they haven't got any warnings for it so why should I get a warning for this. Wrong I didn't know there was a rule against that, BLOF was just being harsh Mario jc didn't give me a warning for sticking my nose into admins' business so. Also I was banned for sharing the same IP as vandals not for that said reason. I seriously didn't know there was a rule against that I am still new here. You can't revert comments bottom line also only you and your twin told me to stop no one else please name another person who told me to stop, I gave up after Toa 95 reverted on that page. I did say I gave up after the reversion didn't I also I wasn't sending friend requests to "random" inactive users, I sent them to either the most famous or ones with the coolest names. Also if it was informally you would've said please stop leaving friend requests not stop, I personally found that rude. Also what if you see the inactive user online but they don't do any edits.

Baby Luigi

  • I didn't give you a warning for no good reason. It's pure common sense to just not leave comments to users who have been inactive for literally years, as they literally cannot get back at you in a time-frame appropriate for a response. Doing so is a waste of editing user space, and it therefore falls under nonconstructive edits, which is, in fact, the default parameter when you give anyone a reminder in the first place. You've been told informally multiple times (this one you reverted a user edit without any explanation, which by the way, Toa95, a sysop, approved of the user's revert of your edits) in fact, to specifically not do this, this is the sole reason you received a Warning instead of a reminder, by the way. And sure, maybe the Courtesy and Warning policy doesn't talk about literally everything bad, but we've banned users for general incompetence before, that includes you, Fawful's Minion. One last note, I will bring up this particular policy page which serves an important purpose and perhaps why I felt you were deserving of a warning in the first place. Also, seeing other users do this is NOT an excuse for repeating bad behavior. Other users should not be replying or talking to older discussions. However, considering that you're a regular user who has done this multiple times in fact, after being told to do so, you ignored our advice and continued doing it. Ignoring advice actually falls precisely under the Warning policy you cited, where you repeated an infraction after you're told to stop. So in fact, you did technically break an official guideline, so the warning should therefore stay. Saying "I didn't know" isn't an excuse to forgo common sense by the way. And if your comments are deemed nonconstructive, then yes we can revert them. Again, Toa95, a sysop, approved of that user reverting your comments. Forum talk is reverted, and so should necroing old discussions IMO.

LuigiBro (talk)

warning overturned
Asides from the fact that reverting an edit once does not count as edit warring, the user was experiencing an issue with the new version of the image. They should have simply been informed to clear their browser cache to view the image correctly: there was no warrant for a last warning.

LuigiBro

  • Edit warring is undoing an edit that provided a reason multiple times. Not only did the edit I reverted not provide a reason, but I only reverted it once, and I did provide a reason.

Wildgoosespeeder

I looked at this user's history before issuing and he had a history of edit warring. He uploaded a low-res version of File:MPAdvanceUKboxart.jpg (first version) and I uploaded something better (second version). He reverted it because it wouldn't load on his userpage properly. I put back the higher quality version and suggested to him to clear his browser cache. After the reversions, I did notice something fishy with the thumbnail on his userpage. Instead of reverting the image, I used action=purge in the URL (image, gallery, and user page). On my end, that might have done the trick.