User talk:David Finn

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)

Thanks for trying Daniel. Your attempt to provisionally lift my block until the MC handles my appeal may have failed, but as I have now had my block provisionally lifted until the MC handles my appeal I consider the MC decision which created this situation a validation of your original approach. Cheers. David Finn 10:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

The Charter does state that "Any act of the Constables may be appealed to the Management Council.", but it also says that the ME may "make interim decisions on behalf of the Editorial and Management Councils when established policy does not provide guidance; these decisions shall be overridden by the establishment of relevant policy". Considering the length of time that had passed without the MC being able to establish an effective complaints procedure it seems reasonable for the ME to establish an interim ruling. Note that the ME stated the lifting of the block to be provisional "until the Management Committee handles (the) appeal". The Charter affords Citizens access to an appeal system that as yet does not exist. If the ME sees that as basis for making an interim decision I do not see how anything in the Charter gives you a basis for challenging that decision. The Charter does not say that the ME can only make interim decisions on behalf of the Councils only when permitted to do so by the Chief Constable. David Finn 10:19, 18 March 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)

Thanks for your words Gareth. David Finn 10:19, 18 March 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)

I strongly object to your use of the terms "prison" and "inmate" The Charter gives you a clear indication of what terms are to be used when referring to Citizens. Use them. The term "Constabulary" is merely an honorific title and is not intended as a wider analogy to be applied to CZ. In addition, your statement does not seem based on policy but on your interpretation of how policy should be. I do not think you should be making judgements on how policy should be interpreted, you should be looking to the MC for guidance, and since the ME has been appointed to make interim decisions on behalf of the MC I think you should simply listen to what he has to say on the subject until told otherwise. David Finn 10:19, 18 March 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)

You are incorrect - the block was initiated for edits made to the forums, which are not CZ:talkspace. David Finn 10:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that the ME could act, but not by lifting the ban until the MC decides. Instead he could interpret the long delay as a valid reason for an interim decision, and decide on the appeal. This decision could then be overruled by the MC if it chooses to do so. --Peter Schmitt 02:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If you see anything in the Charter which would put those kind of limitations on how the ME may impose interim decisions please do list it here. David Finn 10:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The information that was gathered for the appeal is only released to those performing the appeal. The ME hasn't seen it. How can he make a decision? Currently, no-one has seen it but the constabulary. D. Matt Innis 02:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The ME did not make a decision on the Appeal, he quite clearly stated that the temporary lifting of the block was to be until a decision could be rendered. David Finn 10:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

A fair number of judicial systems require a reasonably speedy hearing; if that is not granted, charges may be dropped. It would be one thing if the Constabulary ruling were made as a formal, adversarial proceeding at which both sides can present their cases, but summary judgment can, in fairness, not substitute for a hearing. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The MC has stated on the forums that they have no means to address the issue of a complaints procedure in a timely manner. Or perhaps ever. This makes Constabulary decisions final and unassailable unless there is a method for challenging them to be found. That method is provided for in the Charter, which gives us a ME who has the power to make interim decisions until such time as the MC can make policy. It seems that on the one hand you have the Constabulary, who may make decisions that can only be challenged by the MC, and on the other the ME, whose decisions should only be challengable by the MC. Both Constabulary and ME make "interim" decisions which ultimately may be overruled by the MC. The problem seems to be that one of the parties has the technical ability to block the interim rulings of the other, meaning that in effect the ME is subordinate to the Constabulary, and that is not how the Charter is written. David Finn 10:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

(unproductive section removed David Finn 10:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC))

David, if you are back, welcome back. If not, good luck on the appeal.

Hayford wrote "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 ... are willing to look into the matter." I do not think they have a choice on that. Appeals are in the charter; they must hear them. Of course they would be entirely within their rights to summarily dismiss an appeal in some cases -- take a quick look, decide it was nonsense, and reject it, end of story -- but I do not think they can refuse to hear one. I also don't think this one is a candidate for summary rejection.

I agree with Gareth and the ME; I think article 36 gives the ME the authority to act here. Whether he just lifts the ban temporarily or actually decides the appeal as Peter suggests is not important. Sandy Harris 06:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much Sandy, and as I have stated I agree with your interpretation of Article 36, especially given the elapsed time. David Finn 10:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

(unproductive section removed David Finn 10:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC))

Keep in mind that ME decisions become precedent setting policy until the appropriate council overules. If they don't, then his action becomes policy that the constabulary follows from there on out. If the ME removes a block without hearing an appeal, and without even seeing the documentation, then this is equivalent to a presidential pardon. This is the exact problem we had with Larry. The ME takes full responsibility for all of the consequences. D. Matt Innis 02:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The ME tried to take responsibility for the consequences but you blocked him from doing so, an action which seems contrary to Article 36 of the Charter and, considering that the Appeal in question is a challenge to a decision made by the Chief Constable, also seems contrary to Article 11. David Finn 10:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

European eyes on Libyan article

Your assessment of the constantly changing article, Operation ODYSSEY DAWN, would be very welcome. Yes, several people have commented that they thought Odyssey Dawn was a stripper in the seventies.

One area where you might have insight is on Samantha Power, the presidential special adviser on human rights, who is reported to have been one of the key drivers for the intervention. She's a naturalized US citizen from Ireland, but I believe she was involved in human rights there. I set up a lemma, but she probably warrants a full article. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I had already come across that article but with events moving so fast I decided to leave it alone for now, but I will certainly take a look through it again. The Sam Power article sounds like something I could work on. She is an interesting, if at times controversial, figure. Cheers for the suggestion. David Finn 08:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)