| All completed appeals are archived here. Please add archived appeals to the bottom of the page.
|
Ultimate Mr. L
warning overturned
The warning will be overturned for this case only as the particular wording of {{Reminder}} is in Ultimate Mr. L's advantage; however, the template will be edited to prevent this from ever being an excuse again.
Ultimate Mr. L
- The Warning I am appealing can be found in the middle of the linked section of my talk page. I am not appealing the reminder at the top.Wildgoosespeeder (Talk) gave the warning because I was forgetting to categorize images. At first I thought I deserved it because it was getting annoying for him, but then I realized that reminders say, and I quote, If the action continues deliberately, then a warning will be issued. I was not deliberately forgetting to categorize those images. It was all accidental. If I'm not doing it on purpose, should a warning be issued?
Wildgoosespeeder
- This whole situation is awkward. I like to think of the warning as trying to enforce the rules more so than punishing the user. This is the best way I could do that without having sysop powers. I used it after talking with him several times (in between {{imagecategory-reminder}} and {{warning}}) and he still failed to follow policy. Initially, I tried to give some leeway before issuing {{warning}} because he was responding and being polite about it.
Topmaniac
reminder stands
Unless it's flaming or vandalism, removing comments is a warnable offense. Your talk page is meant to be a record of your editing and conversational history: removing comments just to pretend that it never happened is unacceptable.
Topmaniac
- [I normally wouldn't remove comments from my page, particularly after being reminded. However, I didn't want people to see that I had issues with "vandalizing" a page, so I really wanted to eliminate that part. I felt like there was enough justification to delete that comment.]
The RPG Gamer
- He removed Alex95 (talk)'s informal message to him he has a history of removing comments and even an official reminder before this one, this is the third time this has happened and I reminded him about this once before comments aren't allowed to be removed either way and I couldn't have made myself more clear so the reminder should stay.
Topmaniac
last warning stands
The offense called for a last warning: you have previously received a reminder, warning, and an informal message from an administrator about editing BJAODN content. Furthermore, you deliberately ignored another user's reversion after you changed the content yet again.
Topmaniac
- I know I have been told not to add unnecessary comments to the BJAODN, but I feel that my last two additions to the Items articles added to the humor of the overall articles. With that said, I do understand that I have been told not to edit that article, however, I do not think it deserves a last warning. If this warning is not removed altogether, I would like it to at least be downgraded to a normal warning.
Alex95
- Whelp, I can definitely say that I called this. Your two edits that you feel "added to the humor of the article" were 1) placed in a way that made it look like is was part of the original edit and 2) unnecessary comments.
Aside from the that, the Last Warning was given because you have been told not to add irrelevant comments to the pages, and yet, you continued to do so. So not only was the Last Warning given because of the comments, it was given due to sheer incompetence and failure to heed the advice of others.
The RPG Gamer
reminder overturned
There is no strict preference about using one mark-up over the other, and does not call for an official warning template. It is perfectly acceptable to use the HTML tags over the typical markups, if users find it easier to keep track of the page's coding in that way.
The RPG Gamer
I've never been reminded that using HTML wasn't allowed. Using the MediaWiki wasn't available when putting a file description for a new upload, Wildgoosespeeder then gives me a reminder for this. Last time I checked, those templates are only supposed to be for when the user doesn't stop the action after being informed about it. This was the first time I've ever been told so I personally think it's unjustified. I wasn't intentionally doing it I just didn't see the MediaWiki one available and I've not been reminded at all. Should've a reminder be issued for this? They weren't available while uploading.
Wildgoosespeeder
It's not a {{warning}} or {{last warning}}. Also, you have a record of repeated warnings so this this not really a big deal in comparison. You have been here long enough to know the typical markups used.
Toadette the Achiever
reminder overturned
The user wasn't clearly edit sniping: with the small time frame between edits, it's entirely possible that two users happened to be archiving the proposal at the same time, especially being so shortly after the deadline. As well as this, first-time breaches of the courtesy policy should be dealt with informally, rather than through official warning templates.
Toadette the Achiever
- I know that edit sniping means performing an action before the person meant to perform the action can even do anything. To be honest, I don't think it was obvious enough that Wildgoosespeeder was trying to archive his latest proposal at the time I was trying to archive it as well. Even if it actually was, there were many informal ways he could have addressed the situation, rather than jumping straight to a Reminder.
- P.S.: From now on, when archiving appeals, please use the appeal outcome template to address the outcome. This proposal dictates it.
Wildgoosespeeder
I saw the edit conflict dialog with the template already in place linking to my archived proposal. I just got done moving my proposal. Ran into some trouble with the link, so it was taking longer than usual to commit my edit. The edit that the user did was almost 9 hours between edits.
Wildgoosespeeder
reminder overturned
Text can appear slightly different from browser to browser: it was just unlucky that it appeared a couple of pixels too long. In future, users should have a bit more leniency on such a... small issue.
User talk:Wildgoosespeeder#Signature
Wildgoosespeeder
I made sure that my signature wasn't in violation when I first set it up. Here's what I was able to validate for User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig:
| Tests
|
{{sigbox}}
|
|
| Internet Explorer 11
|
|
|
| Google Chrome
|
|
|
MarioMario456
[NO COMMENT]
Wildgoosespeeder
reminder overturned
The Aboutfile template itself says its usage is optional. Someone hasn't read the instructions.
Wildgoosespeeder
- {{aboutfile-reminder}} is for people that have {{aboutfile}} inserted, but never filled out from the default when Special:Upload is accessed or never corrected within a reasonable amount of time by the uploader. It is not required to have the template inserted but it is recommended. In fact, there was an abandoned project related to it. I have been doing this for a long time.
MarioMario456
- Sometimes, the contributor forgots to add the {{aboutfile}} template.
Marshal Dan Troop
warning overturned
A warning isn't necessary if the user was already blocked for the same incident, let alone one that occurred two years prior.
Marshal Dan Troop
- So here we are me Marshal Dan Troop appealing a warning I got 6 years ago for an action I did 8 years ago what a glorious country. On April 4th 2011 I was given a warning by DKPetey99 for saying Fuck you to Stooben Rooben on September 13th 2009. Now normally this would be a valid warning since that would be flaming. However, I feel the warining isn't valid because firstly the incident happened almost 2 years prior to receiving the warining which I feel like is a bit to long. And for the fact that I was actually blocked for said action by my personal wiki hero Time Q for flaming that same day. And I feel that you can't really recieve a warning for an action you were blocked for because I was already punished for said action. Because of these reasons I feel that my warning should be removed because I don't think it's really valid.
DKPetey99
BBQ Turtle
last warning overturned
The admins have decided to just remove it altogether, as the entire situation was inflated more than it should've. I guess you blew it this time.
BBQ Turtle
- I feel that the last warning was unnecessary because what I did I could only find listed as a level 2 offence, which would mean that it does not need to be given a last warning, but only a warning. I was confused as to whether we could delete the comments or not, as at the end of my welcome message it said that we could delete it, and after I did it once, I did not receive any reminders or comments saying you should not do this, just the last warning. I don't feel that it is fair to be instantly issued this warning, and I would never do it again, even if I had only received a reminder. It is, at worst, a level 2 offence, which only warrants a warning, and as I only did it once, I would like to have the last warning removed, or least downgraded to a warning, please.
Owencrazyboy9
- Now thinking through it, I think the last warning was not necessary. You did stop after getting issued the reminder and last warning, too. For now, it be best to either change it into a warning or have it removed altogether.
Raymond1922A
warning amended
Calling out offensive names is unacceptable in any circumstance, but a Warning was too harsh for the action seeing as this was their first courtesy breach. It will be changed to a Reminder.
Raymond1922A
- My comment on Talk:Hotaru was simply a joke meant to make a point about the problems of using Japanese words. I did not mean to call any user on this site a baka or assume bad faith.
User talk:Raymond1922A#Warning
Baby Luigi
- Regardless if it was a joke, which I find to be frankly rude, out of nowhere, and uncalled for, calling other users a "fool" or "idiot" in Japanese for following established policy guidelines is not acceptable behavior. Also, I did took offense to your wording of saying that it's not "kawaii", because I felt like you're also stereotyping some types people who sometimes pepper Japanese in their writings. I don't think this type of condescension is very respectful. While it is possible that I was too heavy-handed with handing out warning, I still think you should receive at least an official reminder for your behavior.
TheRaoul1992
warning stands
The warning remains because you've been told this before. The template shouldn't be removed directly after a game is released. However, there is currently a proposal that is meant to decide exactly how long to wait.
TheRaoul1992
When I edit a page, I know what I'm doing, if I changed this, it's because the game was released.
FanOfYoshi
This warning was undeserved, I respected the rules.
Owencrazyboy9
warning stands
You've had this problem before, several times. "Harsher consequences" is rather condescending, and the problem can be explained without resorting to reporting them. In all honesty, because you've been blocked for this behavior before, another block should've been issued, but the warning was already applied. Watch yourself.
Owencrazyboy9
- OK, what the actual heck? I go ahead and let a user know about an incident that was going on for a few weeks now (concerning the Paper Mario bestiary page, if you were wondering) and all of a sudden, I get a random warning? Every other time I let users know about something (like reminding other users to use italics for game titles, correcting their mistakes or trying to get them to stop offences before they get in more trouble), I never ever received a Warning for it. And now I get punished because I'm doing what I'm supposed to be doing? The Warning says I'm "supposedly" assuming bad faith. Not true. I'm just telling them about there being consequences if they don't follow the rules. And apparently the "harsher consequences I have no means of enforcing?" Well, I was implying the administrators who "can" enact harsher consequences, but you completely neglected to mention that the general user "can" give other users warnings, last warnings and/or reminders. And I had no idea that the edit in question that caused this whole thing contradicted the reversion I put upon it. I only realized it was a contradiction after I saved that edit and sent the user a reminder. People can and do make mistakes often, but there's no way this mistake I only realized after the edit reversion and user reminder is worth being punished for with a warning. In my honest opinion, I think the warning deserves to go, because I did nothing wrong in this case. What I did was try to let the user know about the incident on a talk page and imply that that user might get in trouble if this keeps up, only for me to then realized I botched it up because I had no idea what I was doing. There's no way this could have escalated into a warning only because I sometimes screw up when I'm doing something I'm supposed to be doing on an occasional basis.
Lord Grammaticus
- The thing about that is, as your talk page shows, you've been told before about unnecessary tones and attitudes towards other editors multiple times before, especially if it involves them undoing or altering your edits in some manner. And I'd just talked to you before about hanging the threat of a block over someone's head when it's not even clear they were necessarily doing something blockworthy to begin with.
- "I'm just telling them about there being consequences if they don't follow the rules." ...while curiously neglecting to mention the rule in question. "Well, I was implying the administrators who "can" enact harsher consequences, but you completely neglected to mention that the general user "can" give other users warnings, last warnings and/or reminders." Yes, I left that out, because I felt those would have been unwarranted.
- My entire thing is, even if I take you at face value, the closest rule RickTommy's edit could've come close to breaking is edit warring, and that's a strong maybe on the matter. And assuming that IS the case, why not discuss it with them on the article's talk page or their own talk page, rather than leaving a message insinuating that your spelling is the only possible spelling, and that attempting to posit otherwise would result in "harsher consequences"? It's that "my way or the highway" tone in particular - which, AGAIN, I noticed you have been told about multiple times previously - that, in my opinion, prompted and warranted the warning.
Toadette the Achiever
reminder overturned
While valid points, a message on the user's talk page that clearly notifies them would have been a better follow-up to an easily missable edit summary for a matter like this than a reminder.
Toadette the Achiever
- While I agree that the concern being brought up is definitely valid, I feel that it's much too early to receive a reminder over, as stated within the second paragraph of the courtesy policy. This is especially considering the fact that I was never previously warned not to use a "copy-paste" kind of content creation in the past.
Bye Guy
- You were told before and I figured that an informal warning should be followed by a reminder. However, the former is an edit summary that you might have simply not seen, so I'm not sure if it counts.
BigBowserBoss
reminder stands
Like Keyblade Master said, the reminder was for misusing templates, which you were already notified previously for, and the part about the links was just an unrelated, follow-up post.
User talk:BigBowserBoss#Reminder
BigBowserBoss
Last month, a reminder was issued to me by User:Keyblade Master, who isn't an administrator or patroller. He said I was misusing templates and links. I do agree with the templates part, but not with the links part. He and several other non-admins were removing the links I added because they looked very “awkward”. The admins said it was the right way to do it. In that way, I feel like that reminder was undeserved. Thanks -
BigBowserBoss FIRE! 06:56, March 6, 2021 (EST)
Keyblade Master
Actually, it was mainly because of the templates why I issued the reminder, since I explained what conjectural templates are for prior to doing so but BigBowserBoss continued to put it on articles which had official names which is why I put a reminder there. The links really didn't have much to do with it, I just happened to leave a message regarding that in a different edit. And I wouldn't issue a warning without contacting an admin first. 
Nightwicked Bowser 
07:08, March 6, 2021 (EST)
Super Mario RPG
last warning amended
While the team agrees that Super Mario RPG has been making sweeping changes without prior discussion and was notified a couple of times, which was the primary reason for the lastwarn, some of the changes have been beneficial. The user has been overall constructive and civil dealing with the matters and has been responsive to criticism. We decided to give this user another chance, so the last warning is downgraded to a warning. Mario (talk) 15:31, February 9, 2024 (EST)
User talk:Super Mario RPG#Last Warning
Super Mario RPG
I'm requesting to appeal my final warning because it did not concern much else than me renaming the "Missions" section on Olympic Games pages to "Profiles and statistics," or adding "Tips" and "Tutorials" under that scope. Otherwise, it was vague, and even contradictory when considering the issuer liked my Missions table. Two users disagreed with the last warning, but one felt that at least minimum effort of discussion was needed before creating several of these templates I've been making. When I saw the issuer undo my edits to the Missions sections of Olympic Games events, I took the effort to manually rename all of the sections back to "Missions" and undid myself on one of the Rio 2016 arcade event pages. Super Mario RPG (talk) 13:09, February 4, 2024 (EST)
BBQ Turtle
The warning was not given just for the "Profiles and Statistics" issue, it was due to the fact that the user has continued to make sweeping changes without much, if any, discussion or explanation first, and has been warned for doing it before. Multiple users have expressed concern about this practice, and the warning was discussed with other administration staff before being issued. BBQ Turtle (talk) 16:20, February 4, 2024 (EST)
Arthur2
reminder stands
It is clear that Arthur2 broke rules and the sysops explained so. Furthermore, Arthur2 has not made a detailed case explaining exactly why these warnings were mistaken nor are their claims supported by any evidence. Please read the warnings by Nightwicked Bowser/Mario jc carefully. Mario (talk) 21:36, May 6, 2024 (EDT)
Arthur2
- It is not purpose. (Anoymous edits are not anoymous me)
Nightwicked Bowser/Mario jc
- Arthur2 already had informal messages about Kracka to Kabooma and about edit warring before the warning was given, as for the reminder the IP Mario Jc links to is Arthur2's IP.
- Mario jc: Can confirm the anonymous IP matches your account and they're even the same type of edits. The reminder was valid, as was Nightwick's warning, as I've previously told you not to add names without providing a source and repeatedly redo your edits. Regarding the reverts: you actively undid a series of edits; I would not call those "not on purpose".
Big Super Mario Fan
last warning stands
This edit in Mario & Luigi (series) was an attempt to enact an ongoing proposal (which is also being heavily opposed) on including original games and ports / remakes in one list in series articles. A similar edit was also attempted in Super Mario (series) prior to starting the proposal which resulted in a warning for making huge changes without discussing. Nightwicked Bowser 14:26, May 18, 2024 (EDT)
Big Super Mario Fan
- This final warning was completely unnecessary. Because the games where all listet from oldest to newest already. I just put them in one section. This has nothing to do with a proposal. Those remakes where already in the right order. I didn't Chance that. Those "drastic changes" for NSMB. U may have been to much. But now they are using some things that I did. So I was still helpful. A lastwarn is for no reason valid. Because I never have a bad intention when I edit. I always try to help.
Mario
- Outlined in the warning message, you have made changes that integrated the remake with the main series[1] which is identical to what you were attempting to effect from an ongoing proposal[2]. This is still breaking the rules, and you should be aware of the proposals you make while you are making changes. That being said, even if the last warning isn't legitimate, you are still under two warnings for making drastic changes without discussion as well as inappropriate formatting in your comment, so a lastwarn, for a different reason, should still be valid.
last warning stands
You continued removing comments even after your edits were reverted multiple times and you were clearly warned previously for this. The last warning was valid.
- At My Talk Page, The Last Warning Was Unnecessary. Because, I Was Removing Talk Page Comments, So I Won't Remove Talk Page Comments Ever Again.
- You cannot remove comments from your talk page, not even on your own. The last warning was given because you continued doing so after the initial warning for it.
WaluigiMan10000
last warning stands
There are multiple guidelines you have not heeded after being reminded about them and before requesting the appeal you had also been informed of the consequence of removing nowiki tags.
User talk:WaluigiMan10000#Last warning
WaluigiMan10000
I Don't know if this is the appeal section, though I was hoping to appeal my last warning. Generally, I'm familiar with the '</nowiki>' thing as gunk on pages that serves 0 relevant purpose. So I'm not making demands, though I was hoping if I could have the last warning removed. Thanks. Sincerely User:WaluigiMan10000
Mario jc
Sorry, but three previous times did I remind you about removing formatting (which still saw no explanation as to why you were doing it), and following the numerous times I notified you or issued a formal reminder for not following previous instructions or rules, at this point it seemed clear that another one wasn't going to get through to you, so this was the last straw. If you had heeded my messages from the start, it wouldn't have resulted in this last warning.
I'm not sure where you heard that from but the "nowiki" is absolutely not irrelevant; if it's there, it's obviously there for a reason, which you would have noticed was the case if you had checked the result of your edit after removing it.
it.
