Wikia

Harry Potter Wiki

Danniesen

11,957pages on
this wiki

Forum page

Forums: Index > The Wizengamot > Danniesen


I'm not all too sure I'm doing this the "right" way, but I felt that it's time we make a blog for it instead of making a whole bunch of new topics on each other's talk pages. The problem I think it's time was discussed, as a community, on one page has a name: Danniesen. I know messages were sent to him, both on Professor Tofty's talk page and, I think, Seth Cooper's talk page, but judging by his past behaviour, I'm not all too sure they'll do him any good. It really isn't all that likely that he's just going to magically start listen now, when he's been told how to behave and hasn't listened before? I think we ought to make a decision and enforce it, instead of providing all sorts of lenience and at the same time saying "No". Please, for everyone's sake, let's just get it over with. Are we bringing him back or no? Hunnie Bunn (talk)

I've left him a message on my talk page (which, for easy reference, I transcribe forthwith):
Danniesen, you have no "story of events" to present us. We know all about what happened well enough. We warned you and helped you, but all of our well-intentions fell of deaf ears — as much as we would like to have you around and help us in the project, you left us no other choice but to permaban you.

You say you know you don't deserve a second chance (or is it a third chance? fourth?), so why do you keep asking for one? You are forgetting that we are not "friends" here — we might be friendly, but it's just because we respect one another and we are pursuing a common goal.
The moment you started editing this wiki, you were accepting our policies and our organisation. You were, since then, bound by our rules and were subjecting to them just like everyone here. You broke them, repeatedly: you engaged in edit wars frequently, you broke consensus, you were counter-productive many times, you created pointless pages and, after many, many warnings, you just proceeded as usual. The community grew tired of your actions, and had to see your block through, under the terms of the very policies you complied to once you started editing this Wiki.
There is a paragraph in the blocking policy that states that "in most instances a block can be lifted if the editor agrees to stop the damaging behaviour". This seems to be the case, however, we simply do not wish to have you back because you show no afterthinking whatsoever: you have obviously tried to circumvent your block (and, by doing so, you are both undermining the authority of our community and administrator board and being crossly unfair to all those that were blocked legitimately and are impeded from editing), you persist making detrimental/disruptive edits to our articles (thus showing us that you haven't changed your ways at all and do not wish to do so once you are brought back), you are being arrogant about your block (do you seriously think that coming here and asking for a "Thank you" is a wise move? And while I'm at it, here, you claim that you created the "1996 Gryffindor Quidditch trials spectators" articles when you were 12 but you are 16 now — which means you must've aged 4 years since October, 2011. Do you really think that lying to our faces is good for your case?).
We could have you back but, in short, and perhaps for the time being, you leave us no reason to be so inclined. Thank you. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 16:30, September 11, 2012 (UTC)

He read it, and using one of his IPs, responded by saying that he would refrain from editing using other IP addresses while his main account was blocked, in hope that perhaps we'd eventually allow him back into his old account.
At the moment, as I think I've made it clear, I for one have no intention of lifting his block for the reasons I've given above. This seems also to be the general feeling around the most active members of the community. If any other member of the community disagrees, of course, then kindly present your arguments so that we can have some discussion material. Otherwise, I think (or, seriously hope) we can put this behind our backs for the time being. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:17, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
I never had the opportunity to know him personally, and judging by everyone else's behaviour around here, I wouldn't want to know him. I did read your post to him, and saw his response, but honestly, how often does he do what he says he will?
I'm not entirely sure what to think anymore. In the short time I've been here, first simply reading things and then eventually making an account and helping edit, he seemed to be quite prominent in my mind as one of the people who will pull an elastic until it snaps, and then keep pulling it till that snaps. I'm more than willing to, as you so excellently put it, "put this behind our backs"; I also don't seem to think anyone in the community will provide a counter-permanent blocking argument... Hunnie Bunn (talk) 23:31, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
As I believe I had mentioned, I believe on Wikipedia at least six months cooldown is standard before they would consider lifting such a block after someone had already been blocked that many times before. It would also help if he would spend some time positively editing other wikis to prove good faith, but he shows no inclination of it. ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:24, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
Something I hadn't considered, but (as with all things presented here) pure truth. All in all, it seems that most of us have agreed on the "No" thing, but as Seth said (sort of, his exact words as seen above were "put this behind our backs for the time being", it being I that emphasised the words and not he) there will eventually come a time when we'll need to consider this, and I thought it'd be for best if we got it over with now instead of later... then again, a lot can change in six months or so. Hunnie Bunn (talk) 00:57, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki