Wikia

Harry Potter Wiki

Danniesen, Part 2

11,901pages on
this wiki

Forum page

Revision as of 23:27, May 19, 2013 by Seth Cooper (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Forums: Index > The Wizengamot > Danniesen, Part 2


As can be seen here, Danniesen has requested another opportunity to edit here on the Harry Potter Wiki. I would recommend a final chance (whatever one we're on) be granted, though of course it is the decision of the community. I suggest that we allow him temporary reprieve, and should he fail to comply with past warnings and present policy, his permanent block can be reinstated. If, however, he does everything he is told to, perhaps he can regain lost credit over time. Thoughts? --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 19:54, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

As I have stated elsewhere, and having originally suggested as an eventual possibility, I don't really object to the other idea if others decide it's worth a shot. I never felt that Danniesen was ever intentionally malicious or anything of the sort, but just not good at following certain rules and perhaps rather over-eager at times. The repeated pattern of making certain edits despite requests to stop was definitely problematic, but if he is truly willing to reform, then I'm willing to give it a shot. ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:55, May 18, 2013 (UTC)
Well said. Do the normal rules (three votes for a yes make it a yes) apply here? If so, we need only one more vote for the motion to pass. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 22:54, May 18, 2013 (UTC)
If three is enough or is not: I vote for giving him a second chance. When he follows the rules the wiki can benefit, if not: Farewell! But I think he would use a second chance because I think he knows there will not be a third and so on chance.  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 23:05, May 18, 2013 (UTC)
Agreed and well-said. So is three votes enough as with normal procedure or do we need more? --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 00:01, May 19, 2013 (UTC)
Normally, I'd say yes, but when it comes to banning decisions, it is to a large degree an admin matter. I'd really like therefore to hear from some of the other admins, even if it takes a while, before any final decision is made. Particularly Seth Cooper and Nick O'Demus, as those who the issued the blocks. ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:46, May 19, 2013 (UTC)
Kind of on the fence, personally. I'm usually pretty forgiving (short of deliberate vandalism), but his history is problematic to say the least. - Nick O'Demus 15:39, May 19, 2013 (UTC)
You raise a good point, Nick... however, perhaps now he knows that there will be no more chances he might change his ways as he said he would. Still, I guess this is between the admins now. c: --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 15:41, May 19, 2013 (UTC)
I'm not happy about the fact that he repeatedly tried to circumvent his block... Even so, as far as this matter is concerned, I could go either way. I wouldn't mind having him back, as long as he is here to help. Of course, if we are to have him back, I think we should mantain a zero-tolerance policy: if he insists on doing things he's instructed against, he is to be blocked for an indefinite period of time, once again. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 16:39, May 19, 2013 (UTC)
It's understandable that you're not happy about his repetitively attempting to circumvent his block, as it was supposed to be permanent. But pretty much, there's nobody directly opposed to letting him back, under the condition that his first attempt to do anything he is instructed against will result in an immediate and permanent block... at least, that's my understanding of the comments here. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 17:15, May 19, 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the fact that the repeated attempts to circumvent the block were the most troubling aspect. Still, since there's reasonable support for the idea and no direct objection, and since we've now heard from both Seth and Nick, I plan to go ahead and do the unblock within the next 24 hours, unless any specific objection is raised. As has been noted, zero-tolerance will be maintained, particularly in regard to any activities that have been warned against in the past. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:12, May 19, 2013 (UTC)
Alrighty. Danniesen probably should be notified about this conversation, to make sure he understands the terms on which he is to be welcomed back. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:27, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki