Thread:Sannse/@comment-1251315-20160606142915/@comment-1251315-20160606213512

Per the Harry Potter Wiki's blocking policy, "any administrator may block any user that they determine is a detriment to the project," and "final discretion is left to the blocking administrator on a case-by-case basis." That doesn't apply when the blocking sysop is personally involved in the dispute and cannot reasonably make a neutral opinion. You should have contacted some other sysop, not acted "unilaterally" like you claimed. Additionally, you made a veiled and indirect threat to Seth Cooper in which you clearly made the intention that you would leave the wiki if he did not block me.

This is not something that has to be stated, any sysop should know not to use their tools when they're clearly very involved in a dispute: even Wikia makes it clear that "Admin powers are not editor privileges" and that "admins should only act as servants to the user community at large."

unfortunately he had a habit of acting unilaterally, essentially formulating and enforcing his own policies even though they ran completely counter to established policy and practice I did not "formulate" my own policies. Most of what I was doing were common sense things, even things like removing wikipedia citations, given that Wikipedia themselves that you should not reference their pages. That is just your subjective opinion.

SuperSajuuk has a similar history on other wikis. He's currently banned for a year on the Elder Scrolls Wiki and many of the concerns raised regarding his conduct by users of that wiki are identical to concerns raised about his behaviour on HP Wiki. I was actually aware of this history at the time he requested Content Moderator rights, but I decided he deserved a chance for a fresh start on our wiki. Unfortunately, he hasn't changed his ways, and has continued the pattern of behaviour that lead to him being banned for a year on TES Wiki. Why do you persist in bringing up actions that were taken on other wiki's for which you don't understand the circumstances behind them? You have never edited any other wiki, except HP Wiki, so how can you somehow formulate opinions about actions taken against another user on other wiki's when you were never there in the first place? I even explained how you were incorrect in your reasoning, quite calmly and rationally, but you didn't listen to me at all and chose a punitive action, not a preventative action. You still continue to think that you know why these actions were taken and are refusing to listen to me on this matter, despite me stating multiple times why you are wrong.

Additionally, the only people who complained about my conduct are you and Ironyak1: if you can link me any "public facing" locations where users have complained, then I'd love to hear about it. In fact, I have long had the suspicion that Ironyak1 is not a legitimate user, but just a sockpuppet account that you created, given that they started editing not long after I became a Content Moderator and were always supporting everything you posted and have also not edited anywhere other than HP Wiki. My suspicions on this issue are increased still further with this statement you made: I've also been privately contacted by a user who felt that his conduct was creating a toxic environment that made them want to stop editing. I would not be surprised in the slightest if the "one user" who complained was indeed Ironyak1.

Of course, those are just my suspicions and cannot be backed up unless Wikia performed a CheckUser.

The fact that he's come here insisting he was randomly blocked for no reason, rather than as a direct consequence of his actions, underscores how deep the issue runs. Or you don't understand how the Wikia system works. I considered your block to be personally motivated, not neutral and based primarily on bias.

He scared off at least one new user by threatening to have them blocked over a completely minor mistake (which in and of itself was overstepping his authority). You clearly don't have the experience of wiki editing when making this statement. Wiki's are community projects, they are not personal projects, nor places with hierarchies. No user is "above" anyone else, and this comment clearly shows that you think that you have "authority" over users just by having a sysop flag, when really you are nothing more than a normal user who just happens to have some additional tools to help the wiki. Being a sysop does not mean you have authority over anyone.

When his request for bot rights didn't go through due to concerns he might use a bot to carry out unilateral actions, he started repeatedly badgering other admins, presumably in the hope that asking enough people enough times would change the outcome. Wikia Staff asked me to contact other sysops, because that's how it works, but given that you don't edit any other wiki's, it's understandable how you don't understand the process. Your word is not law in a discussion, so just because you didn't want me to have bot rights does not mean I can't ask other sysops to post their opinions, like you repeatedly asserted in various places (even in chat where you acted like your opinion was the law (iirc, it was "You asked for bot rights, you didn't get authorisation", even though only one sysop, you, opposed them.)). If all 3 other sysops supported, then your opposal would not be considered by Wikia, as there would be a majority support.

That is how the system always works, but your response showcases you don't understand how to get bot rights on Wikia. One sysop does not get to make unilateral decisions regarding something that only Wikia Staff can grant. Wikia specifically wanted the other sysops to post, but given that the other sysops barely edit the wiki, I was forced to continue bumping the discussion in the hope that they would see the messages.

There's a difficult balance to be struck between allowing misguided/inexperienced users a chance to reform and giving truly disruptive users such a long lease that they drive off productive users. That's an interesting statement to make, given that I have edited on many more wiki's and had far more experience of Wikia, whereas I only need to check your profile and see all your edits are on one single wiki and nowhere else.

I blocked SuperSajuuk from editing his talk page because of a pattern of escalation in his final posts, which contained increasingly abusive messages directed at me. Also because I foresaw what is happening here: that SuperSajuuk would protest what he deems the injustice of his block without acknowledging he did anything wrong. Thus allowing him to escalate and drag out the matter even further would be unproductive. Lol, nothing I posted was abusive, Wikia Staff can have a look and see nothing I posted would even cover the definition of "abusive". If you think me defending myself from the incorrect and false information you were spreading on user talkpages is abusive, then that's not my problem, but more like an issue whereby you were too emotionally involved to have a neutral POV to make the correct judgement call.

The block is final and not open for discussion, I'm afraid. Except that Seth Cooper can quite reasonably overturn the decision, as can Wikia Staff (if they so choose), if they believe the block is not legitimate.

Additionally, with that statement, you are also demonstrating that you don't want to listen to anyone else's opinion, except choosing to post huge text walls about how supposedly terrible an editor I am (despite being completely misinformed about me) and giving nobody the right of reply. This is the sign of a person who has limited experience of wiki editing and thinks their word is law and believes that they have "authority" over the userbase.

I would really appreciate if Seth Cooper could intervene here, given that you ranted on his talkpage on HP Wiki and gave him no chance to respond, which seems to be something you like doing.