MarioWiki:Appeals/Archive 2

__NEWSECTIONLINK__ 

BabyLuigiOnFire
REMINDER OVERTURNED Users get a week to fix their sigs before any punitive action is taken after the initial is administered.
 * User talk:BabyLuigiOnFire

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 OVERTURNED 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.
 * User_talk:Mario7

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).
 * User_talk:The_Chain_Chomp

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.
 * My 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's warning

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.


 * User talk:Pinkie Pie/Archive 6

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.
 * User talk:Viper26

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. -

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.
 * User talk:BossBass

BossBass

 * My blanking on the page DK Jungle (Mario Kart 7) was entirely accidental. I am a new user and have no idea how text from New Super Mario Bros. U got on the page. Therefore, I ask that the warning for blanking be removed.

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.
 * Last Warning

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.
 * Warning

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.
 * Reminder for swearing in edit summaries

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]