MarioWiki talk:Appeals

???
Why was the article unprotected?--Holyromanemperortatan 19:07, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
 * So people can make appeals, which was the whole purpose of the page. Red_Yoshi_TTYD.png‎‎ Yoshi  waker  OrangeYoshiTTYD.png 19:09, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Also, the only reason it was protected was because it was under construction.
 * Ohhh. Well thank you to both of you!--Holyromanemperortatan 19:12, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

This may or may not be a stupid question, but...
Can anyone put notices on a user's page if a reminder/warning given by him or her is in dispute and the user who received the warning/reminder does not alert the other user, or is this limited solely to the administration?
 * There's no rule against it. So, go for it.

Suggestion
It needs comments section badly.
 * I don't see why, people dog piling on comments will just lead to walls of text like the Proposals page and lead to unnecessary friction between users, besides most people will just state the obvious. Which while it'll be a big, big, big, help to use, it's not needed.

Look at me, I found a potential problem, ain't I something?
The page says that you cannot appeal a reminder issued by an Administrator, but the first appeal is one where the user that issued the reminder/warning was a sysop when the reminder/warning was issued, but is not anymore? It seems we need more specificity here...
 * Yes, but Jorge has been demoted since. Think of this scenario: I give hundreds of users warnings, for the reason "die". There's a 100% chance I would be demoted for that. After I was demoted, would those warnings be unrevertable?
 * ^What he said.

Agree with the above. CatJedi's been here......this is bad at being a random comment

last
Are you allowed to appeal lst warnings? 21:02, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
 * If you are referring to your last warnings, those last warnings are valid.

Not these two. These are invalid.

.
 * @Superfiremario You can appeal any warning/reminder so long as it wasn't issued to you by an administrator.


 * The first one isn't because that was for userspace and for making useless redirects and flooding the recent changes log. The valid warnings SFM have are: this one, title=User_talk:Superfiremario&diff=prev&oldid=985719 here, this one, and this one, so I don't think he should appeal to delete these because one of the last warnings is also for editing on archives! 21:25, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
 * To answer the original question, you are allowed to appeal anything; so long as it is a warning (this includes ).
 * Yes, but those warnings are valid. 21:31, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
 * It doesn't matter. If SFM disagrees, he can appeal them, though the final decision as to their validity is up to the administration.

@DKPetey99: No. Just wondering. 10:53, 14 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Basically what they said, any reminder, warning, and or last warning issued by anyone other than admins is appealable, evne if it is painfully obvious that it's going to stand.

This is not very helpful...

 * It means that the reminder is not invalid.

yeah it just means the reminder was valid although just saying something like the warning was valid may be more helpful


 * Saying it this way is more formal and somewhat similar to what a judge would use in a courtroom during appeals ("the ruling/sentence stands"), which I believe is the format it's supposed to have.
 * Seriously? Isn't it obvious? It means the reminder grew legs and now stands, rather than the poor warning who sit all day.

Suggestion 2
It needs Archive badly.
 * Not yet. I understand archiving later, but not now.
 * This is a fabulous suggestion! Why didn't we think of it! It's not like we've only had two or three appeals on this page right now or anything. We were just gonna let it sit there forever and make this page the longest on the wiki!

Hey
What happens if the person who warns, reminders, or last warns you doesn't defend their case? 17:24, 8 June 2011 (EDT)


 * I assume it all depends on whether or not the warning is valid or not
 * Then they don't defend the case, they don't get a chance to show the Sysops why their w/r was valid. But the case still goes through regularly.

Plumber690's reminder
Plumber690 needs to discuss about the reminder he gave to Goomba's Shoe15, but since he's blocked for six months, is that case gonna stay there for a long time until his block is over?
 * No, he just misses an opportunity to help his case, but the admin boards knows which way it's wanting to go.

Rule 1
I honestly think it should be removed. Isn't there somewhere in the wiki where it explicitly says that administrators are just regular users with more tools? In fact, this is exactly what the administrator page says, "Sysops are not imbued with any special authority, and are equal to everyone else in terms of editorial responsibility. Some consider the terms "Sysop" and "Administrator" to be misnomers, as they just indicate users who have had performance - and security-based restrictions on several features lifted because they seemed like trustworthy folks. Sysops should not have power over other users other than applying decisions made by all users.".

Often the administration are wise folks who know what they are doing and will not give out warnings or reminders that are illogical, but if the said thing is possible to dispute (if ever at all), it should be possible to dispute. 21:20, 14 September 2013 (EDT)
 * The reason that rule is there is because administrators are supposed to be fully knowledgeable of the rules, but you're right, that doesn't mean we don't make mistakes. And actually, incorrectly giving a reminder also has consequences for us, but they are dealt with privately. Don't worry, we at the staff team make sure no incorrect warnings are given by an administrator; and, in case one is given, we will properly discuss it and remove it. -- 21:25, 14 September 2013 (EDT)


 * Per Tucayo: ill-issued warning by administrators are discussed privately, and the appropriate action is decided. I imagine that the rule was probably implemented to reduce the numbers of those who appealed valid warnings which administrators issued.


 * 23:11, 14 September 2013 (EDT)
 * Ok thanks for clearing that up. 23:20, 14 September 2013 (EDT)