User talk:David Finn: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>D. Matt Innis (I'm in a holding pattern) |
imported>Hayford Peirce (→Welcome back: my thoughts) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
:::This appears to be a slippery slope. If a citizen is blocked due to their behavior during discussions, why would we allow them to continue these discussions? I could understand that the ME could act as a check to the constabulary in discussions that affect content, but this has the potential of undermining the authority of the constabulary and make their actions moot. In fact, this does not appear to be a decision based on merit, but appears to be a manipulation on the part of the ME to force the MC to take action. I share his empathy, but releasing a blocked citizen should be after a formal decision, not because the prisons are too full to hear all the cases. Otherwise we'll have inmates loose on the site if they can't get a hearing, even if the MC has decided 'not' to hear it. Perhaps a "limited release" is in order? Either way, it seems I have to take my orders from the MC. A better path may be to request the MC give a decision. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 18:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC) | :::This appears to be a slippery slope. If a citizen is blocked due to their behavior during discussions, why would we allow them to continue these discussions? I could understand that the ME could act as a check to the constabulary in discussions that affect content, but this has the potential of undermining the authority of the constabulary and make their actions moot. In fact, this does not appear to be a decision based on merit, but appears to be a manipulation on the part of the ME to force the MC to take action. I share his empathy, but releasing a blocked citizen should be after a formal decision, not because the prisons are too full to hear all the cases. Otherwise we'll have inmates loose on the site if they can't get a hearing, even if the MC has decided 'not' to hear it. Perhaps a "limited release" is in order? Either way, it seems I have to take my orders from the MC. A better path may be to request the MC give a decision. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 18:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC) | ||
::::As Secretary of the Editorial Council I have no ax to grind in this matter but I do think that after nearly two months the MC ought to be able at least to issue a public statement as to whether or not they are going to hear the appeal. Without going into the merits of the appeal at all, it ought to be able to poll five people and find out whether three of them are willing to look into the matter. Aside from that, as a private Citizen, I agree with Matt: if a Citizen is banned for misuse of Talk space, it doesn't make sense to give it back to him while awaiting his appeal. Suppose he misuses it *again*? And is banned again? Is he then reinstated a *second* time while he appeals *this* case? Maybe I'm just talking like an old Cop backing up the present one.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 18:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:57, 16 January 2011
Welcome back
Hi David,
I have provisionally lifted your block until the Management Committee handles your appeal. --Daniel Mietchen 23:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC) (as Managing Editor)
- I would have to see that the ME has the authority to do this before I can actually unblock this account. The charter seems to state that the appeal has to go through the MC. D. Matt Innis 00:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- You're quite right Matt, but Article 36 in my view gives the ME quite wide ranging authority to make interim decisions; in this case, the ME isn't prejudging the appeal, but is allowing David to fully participate in discussions while that is in process.Gareth Leng 10:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- This appears to be a slippery slope. If a citizen is blocked due to their behavior during discussions, why would we allow them to continue these discussions? I could understand that the ME could act as a check to the constabulary in discussions that affect content, but this has the potential of undermining the authority of the constabulary and make their actions moot. In fact, this does not appear to be a decision based on merit, but appears to be a manipulation on the part of the ME to force the MC to take action. I share his empathy, but releasing a blocked citizen should be after a formal decision, not because the prisons are too full to hear all the cases. Otherwise we'll have inmates loose on the site if they can't get a hearing, even if the MC has decided 'not' to hear it. Perhaps a "limited release" is in order? Either way, it seems I have to take my orders from the MC. A better path may be to request the MC give a decision. D. Matt Innis 18:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- As Secretary of the Editorial Council I have no ax to grind in this matter but I do think that after nearly two months the MC ought to be able at least to issue a public statement as to whether or not they are going to hear the appeal. Without going into the merits of the appeal at all, it ought to be able to poll five people and find out whether three of them are willing to look into the matter. Aside from that, as a private Citizen, I agree with Matt: if a Citizen is banned for misuse of Talk space, it doesn't make sense to give it back to him while awaiting his appeal. Suppose he misuses it *again*? And is banned again? Is he then reinstated a *second* time while he appeals *this* case? Maybe I'm just talking like an old Cop backing up the present one.... Hayford Peirce 18:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)