User talk:Privatemusings/steve email

G'day all,
It's my understanding that following a discussion, and internal committee vote, User:Steve Crossin is currently banned by arbcom for a 6 month period.

I dopped a note in to Flo's talk page about this today; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FloNight&diff=247861805&oldid=247447371

- because I think Flo has been one of the more active arb.s in this matter? In talking the matter through (predominantly with DanielB and MBisanz, who were most helpful on IRC), it was suggested that I drop a note to this list also - which seemed a good idea to me.

I feel that it's clear that the arbcom handled this case privately with the best of intentions, and I gather there may be voluminous evidence which might not be suitable for public disclosure or discussion. That said however, I feel that a simple 'on wiki' clarificaton would be hugely beneficial for a number of reasons.

I believe writing up the internal committee vote 'on wiki' would help a great deal, and pretty much resolve the matter. (the vote was mentioned here; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ned_Scott&diff=245000130&oldid=244510867 )

It's very clear to me that Steve would like to edit again as soon as possible, and that if possible he'd like the opportunity of a regular arbitration case. I would hope community input would be possible in some way shape or form. I am, of course, happy to chat further in any medium if anyone would like :-)

Many of you will be aware of my ideas and opinions in regard to communications, and I'd greatly appreciate a note from absolutely any of you, just to acknowledge receipt really :-) I would further appreciate a list recipient confirming whether or not this is the 'active arbs only' list, or the regular 'arbs and ex-arbs' list - thanks!

best regards,

Peter PM. - just a bit before 04:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

G'day all,
It's been a lazy week since the below, and just wanted to re-iterate my request for an acknowledgment of receipt, and hopefully some attention to what I consider unresolved issues below. I'd really really like to see a simple arb head count on Steve's ban, which for me would represent a simply and straightforward solution to an important unresolved question.

Thanks heaps for your attention in this matter, and I would really really appreciate absolutely any recipient of this email simply hitting 'reply'... cheers,

Peter PM.

-- Forwarded message -- From: private musings  Date: Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:39 PM Subject: Steve Crossin To: Arbitration Committee mailing list  - just a bit before 23:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

received response from FT2 on Nov 3rd :-)
..confirming that all arb.s and ex-arbs received the message, and suggesting that the fact no-one responded indicates no-one sees merit in pursuing a matter which the arbcom views as resolved based on the agreement made with Steve in August. Feels that this diff largely explains matters. - 04:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

G'day FT et al,
thanks for the response :-)

I'm afraid the crux of the matter remains unresolved for me. Could you please please please consider formally certifying on-wiki your internal committee vote which banned Steve for 6 months. Please also consider allowing a public case to be held (benefits of statements, evidence, workshop etc. being pretty straight forward :-)

I've only touched base briefly wih Steve on IRC, but it's clear to me that Steve would like to edit prior to the six month ban lapsing, thus morhping the 'agreement' into the clear 'ban' which it now is - I think it'd be kind and clear to have it written up as such on wiki.

best,

Peter PM. - 04:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

response from FT immediately :-)
indicating that fundamentally this is a matter between Steve and arbcom - received 04.42 6 Nov 2008

thanks FT,
I totally understand (and support) your priority in not re-opening what may be rather sore wounds on Steve's part at the behest of a third party, and I respect the fact that you seem to me below to be indicating that if Steve contacts you as a committee then he may be heard. That's great :-)

Regardless of how Steve may choose to handle this matter going forward, personally I'd consider it a good idea to certify any formal arb sanction, such as Steve's six month ban, 'on wiki' for a variety of reasons.

I seek only to resolve the possibility that the status quo is a situation where Steve would like to have an arb case, and regular discussion prior to formal sanctions etc. but is getting strong messages that an internal committee vote has already decided the matter. I think we're getting somewhere here though, so that's all to the good.....

Thanks heaps for such prompt attention to this too :-)

best,

Peter PM. 04:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

response from FT
stern in tone, in strong synergy with comments at the current RfC (good intentions, terrible approach) - reinforce central issue as relating to party's request for privacy.

thanks again for the response, FT,
You may have seen that this has now moved 'on wiki' to a requests for comment, where I have to say many voices are echoing the spirit of your comments below.

Aside from some elements of your email which confuse me a bit, I agree this line of communication isn't working... it's non functional really - and though I may be tenacious / persistent / stubborn / bone headed, I'm only really interested in conversations where both sides might see merit... :-)

I believe the arbcom has fallen short of best practice here. You (the committee) have discussed a case privately, and voted internally to issue a 6 month ban to a user. You (as a committee) consider it impossible to certify this on-wiki with any sort of public motion, though individual arbs have communicated the existance of the ban on wiki.

I sincerely believe there are significant weaknesses and dangers in this approach.

Agreeing to disagree isn't the worst thing in the world though, and the wiki world will keep on turning, no doubt :-) - I certainly need to work on acknowledging whether or not I'm communicating my points clearly, whether or not they're reasonable, and whether or not there's any possible merit in pursuing them....receiving a few responses is most certainly appreciated though - so thanks!

best,

Peter, PM. - shortly before 07:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

further response from thebainer, and FT
explaining that the decision on case handling was essentially between steve and arbcom, with good motivations - friendly strong advice re-iterating concerns about harm in my approach.

Thanks for the replies, guys
I'm going to leave my previous post as my final comment on this matter - per the strong advice I'm getting from absolutely everywhere!

You're aware of my points. and I've registered my dissenting opinion as best I can.

Thanks heaps for replying substantively and promptly, and whilst my talkpage, inbox etc. remain open for any further questions or advice etc. (all most welcome!) - I'll move along to other stuff....

best regards,

Peter PM. - shortly before 05:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)