User talk:Dylan620/Archives/2011/March
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
in this case
two mins would be plenty, please replace the template on his userpage - User:Sol Goldstone and please replace the addition at Wikipedia:List of banned users when you accept that. thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose you (and N419BH, for that matter) are right. When I requested for the Access Denied ban discussion to be closed early, it never happened, so I assumed that an admin had declined to do so. I came to the conclusion that even obvious cases should be open for 48 hours - I guess I was wrong, at least as far as Sol is concerned. A failure to IAR on my part - I'll restore your edits right after this post. Please accept my apologies. --Dylan620 (t • c) 04:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Its up to you but you have added a claim of criminal harassment to the wiki here in this diff- this is up to you and I don't support such allegations but I would say to take it easy with the assertions. Off2riorob (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted your closure here. Your close had three faults, in increasing order they were, 1) The formal motion to ban was only open for around 3 hours. To allow a broad and worldwide crosssection of the community to comment, WP:BAN requires 24 hours. 2) Again, per WP:BAN, an uninvolved administrator must close ban discussions. 3) As the person who formally made the ban motion, you couldn't have closed this one even if you were an admin. Banning users is a horrible duty, and it must be done soberly. Perhaps this one is indefensible, and can have no other outcome, but the fundamental principle must be preserved- it is difficult to enact a community ban, and it must remain so. Three hour discussions in the middle of the night UTC cannot be sufficient to enact such a remedy. Courcelles 06:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- ETA: The third was the true grave fault here. You can't be the one to close and enact discussions after expressing such a clear opinion when making a motion. Here, I'll prevent myself from closing it: This user will be banned, he will have earned it. But we follow process in these discussions because the duty is so terrible, not in the clear and obvious cases, but in the tough ones. Because this is our highest and harshest remedy as a community, and three hour discussions do not allow the sobering thought that is necessary in the hard cases. Because of how hard this can be, we do not and must not take shortcuts in the easy cases, it must not become an easy thing to do in less time than it takes to eat a nice meal. Someone is going to haul me up on WP:IAR here, I can see it already. So be it. If there is one thing that we must preserve process for, it is the banning of a user. Courcelles 06:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- That was actually my initial stance on the discussion length; see my response to Rob above. Rob and N419BH convinced me to apply IAR to the discussion, and I closed it per their input; of course I shouldn't be blaming them though, since it was my fault for not double-checking the banning policy and for trying to make such decisions at 11 PM. Thank you for reminding me that IAR does not apply to the banning policy, and for the post in general; I agree 100% with your points, and I will take greater care when handling or participating in ban discussions in the future (though I should note that I was able to close the Jake Duncan ban discussion, and have the OP record the ban in the editor's block log, without any trouble. Nevertheless, if policy prevents non-administrators from closing ban discussions, then I will not do so again). Apologies if I'm not completely making sense here; it's nearly 2 AM here in New England. --Dylan620 (t • c) 06:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- WP:BAN does specify "uninvolved administrator", but I really don't really care about that too much, it if says it (and I didn't put it there, and don't really agree it needs to be there), it should probably be followed, but I would never have gone through the song and dance of reverting you over just that issue. That would be policywonking, and largely immaterial. Banning someone must be beyond repute, and the other two problems could have placed this one there. (I can't find the link, likely because I'm half asleep myself ;) but there have been attempts to ram a anything-other-than-obvious ban through under the cover of night before, which was a truly bad thing.) No worries about this one, he's just as gone now after a longer discussion; happy editing. Courcelles 07:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- That was actually my initial stance on the discussion length; see my response to Rob above. Rob and N419BH convinced me to apply IAR to the discussion, and I closed it per their input; of course I shouldn't be blaming them though, since it was my fault for not double-checking the banning policy and for trying to make such decisions at 11 PM. Thank you for reminding me that IAR does not apply to the banning policy, and for the post in general; I agree 100% with your points, and I will take greater care when handling or participating in ban discussions in the future (though I should note that I was able to close the Jake Duncan ban discussion, and have the OP record the ban in the editor's block log, without any trouble. Nevertheless, if policy prevents non-administrators from closing ban discussions, then I will not do so again). Apologies if I'm not completely making sense here; it's nearly 2 AM here in New England. --Dylan620 (t • c) 06:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you!
Hi Dylan620, I'd like to thank you for your support and the warm words you found for my contributions! Thank you very much, it was really kind of you. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Please log ban
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I have enacted the community ban of Δδ (talk · contribs). Could an admin please record the ban in the editor's block log? Thanks, Dylan620 (t • c) 02:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
