MarioWiki talk:Appeals: Difference between revisions
Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
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? {{user:Mario jc/sig}} | 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? {{user:Mario jc/sig}} | ||
:No, he just misses an opportunity to help his case, but the admin boards knows which way it's wanting to go. {{User:Xzelion/sig}} | :No, he just misses an opportunity to help his case, but the admin boards knows which way it's wanting to go. {{User:Xzelion/sig}} | ||
==Rule 1== | |||
{{talk}} | |||
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. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 21:20, 14 September 2013 (EDT) |
Revision as of 20:20, September 14, 2013
???
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. Yoshiwaker 19:09, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
- Also, the only reason it was protected was because it was under construction. Mario4Ever (talk)
- Ohhh. Well thank you to both of you!--Holyromanemperortatan 19:12, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
- Also, the only reason it was protected was because it was under construction. Mario4Ever (talk)
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? Mario4Ever (talk)
Suggestion
It needs comments section badly. SWFlash
- 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. XzelionETC
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... Bop1996 (Talk)
- 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? ( | )
Agree with the above. CatJedi's been here......this is bad at being a random comment
last
Are you allowed to appeal lst warnings? Superfiremario 21:02, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
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. Mario4Ever (talk)
- 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! DKPetey99TCE 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 {{Lastwarn}}). ( | )
- 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! DKPetey99TCE 21:25, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
@DKPetey99: No. Just wondering. Superfiremario 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. XzelionETC
This is not very helpful...
yeah it just means the reminder was valid although just saying something like the warning was valid may be more helpful Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
- 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. Mario4Ever (talk)
Suggestion 2
It needs Archive badly. SWFlash
Hey
What happens if the person who warns, reminders, or last warns you doesn't defend their case? DKPetey99TCE 17:24, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
- I assume it all depends on whether or not the warning is valid or not Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
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? Mario JC
- No, he just misses an opportunity to help his case, but the admin boards knows which way it's wanting to go. XzelionETC
Rule 1
This talk page or section has a conflict or question that needs to be answered. Please try to help and resolve the issue by leaving a comment. |
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. Ray Trace(T|C) 21:20, 14 September 2013 (EDT)