User talk:David Finn: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Hayford Peirce
(→‎Welcome back: another return of the stranger)
imported>D. Matt Innis
m (Protected "User talk:David Finn" ([move=sysop] (indefinite)))
 
(40 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Welcome back ==
== Re re-approval of [[Boiling point/Draft]] ==


Hi David,
David, will you please review Milton's responses to your comments on th Talk page regarding [[Boiling point/Draft]], and note on the Talk page whether you consider them satisfactory, and if not, why not.


I have provisionally [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=CZ:Managing_Editor/2010/003_-_Appeal_of_block_1549&curid=100171050&diff=100748464&oldid=100739187 lifted your block] until the Management Committee handles your appeal. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 23:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC) (as [[CZ:Managing Editor|Managing Editor]])
Also, would you give your assessment of the article as to its meriting re-approval.


: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. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 00:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. —[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 03:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC), Approval Manager.


::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.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 10:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
:I see the approval process overtook my timeframe for answering these questions. Well done Anthony, in just a few weeks you managed our first article approval in a very long time! Ok, only a re-approval, but it's a good start. For the record I think the small addition to the introduction of the draft article made a big difference to the amount of people who would try to use that article. My concerns were the same as yours - of course we shouldn't eliminate the scientific information, that would be ridiculous, but we should certainly try where possible to introduce all readers to a topic in a way they can understand, with increasing complexity as the reader progresses. That is, of course, why we have subpages and the like. Keep up the good work! [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 07:35, 4 March 2012 (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)
 
::::: 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. --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 02:04, 17 January 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. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 02:27, 17 January 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. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 02:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Presumably, the USA and some of its citizens find it convenient to forget the shame of Guantanomo Bay: forget about speedy hearings, why have any hearings at all? In this particular case, as I was tangentially involved as was Howard, I do not find it appropriate to challenge the decision and impartiality of the Constabulary. The MC has responsibility for this matter, and should attend to it. Allowing the ME to interfere is asking for trouble. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 03:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 
:::::::::Hehe, same old Martin, unmellowed by transiting into 2011! Glad to see that some things remain eternal. (I agree with your comments, by the way.) [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 03:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 08:45, 15 April 2012

Re re-approval of Boiling point/Draft

David, will you please review Milton's responses to your comments on th Talk page regarding Boiling point/Draft, and note on the Talk page whether you consider them satisfactory, and if not, why not.

Also, would you give your assessment of the article as to its meriting re-approval.

Thank you. —Anthony.Sebastian 03:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC), Approval Manager.

I see the approval process overtook my timeframe for answering these questions. Well done Anthony, in just a few weeks you managed our first article approval in a very long time! Ok, only a re-approval, but it's a good start. For the record I think the small addition to the introduction of the draft article made a big difference to the amount of people who would try to use that article. My concerns were the same as yours - of course we shouldn't eliminate the scientific information, that would be ridiculous, but we should certainly try where possible to introduce all readers to a topic in a way they can understand, with increasing complexity as the reader progresses. That is, of course, why we have subpages and the like. Keep up the good work! David Finn 07:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Finn&oldid=743429"