| Revision as of 15:34, 14 October 2009 editSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors279,126 edits →Monitoring page (per My Plan): move comment, as it now appears that Mattisse intends to change the system← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:39, 14 October 2009 edit undoSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors279,126 edits →Discussion: <sigh> add missing commentary, deleted from monitoring talk, so mentors can try to track what went on hereNext edit → | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
| === Discussion === | === Discussion === | ||
| I would also like to see someone add a link to the final ArbCom decision to the monitoring page, as Mattisse still seems confused about the difference between the final decision and the proposal page. If mentors want to move this to the main page as a sample of how the page should work, I don't mind, but I suggest it would be better used on talk as a sample only, to help work out any kinks in the system. I hope this example will show mentors staying focused on the issues with Mattisse's edits, rather than side issues. ] (]) 14:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC) | I would also like to see someone add a link to the final ArbCom decision to the monitoring page, as Mattisse still seems confused about the difference between the final decision and the proposal page. If mentors want to move this to the main page as a sample of how the page should work, I don't mind, but I suggest it would be better used on talk as a sample only, to help work out any kinks in the system. I hope this example will show mentors staying focused on the issues with Mattisse's edits, rather than side issues. ] (]) 14:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == Sample of how proposed process would work == | |||
| (comment moved to ] , the proper forum for those not appointed as my mentors/advisers.) | |||
| : For clarity, Mattisse; are you asking that other editors no longer post to this talk page? ] (]) 15:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Also, by moving my sample to ] instead of ], there is no talk page associated with the Editorial comments page. ] (]) 15:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Monitoring page (per My Plan) == | == Monitoring page (per My Plan) == | ||
Revision as of 15:39, 14 October 2009
This page is for comments and suggestions regarding my behavior by those other than my ArbCom-appointed mentors/advisers.
Sample of how proposed process would work
Following Philcha's proposed outline above, I'm putting this on talk so you all can use it as a sample:
Specify the problem(s) concisely and courteously, along with specific link(s):
- Mattisse makes unsubstantiated claims about other editors, does not back them with diffs when requested, and does not strike them from her commentary when other editors comment. Unsubstantiated statements about other editors remain on record, unaddressed and uncorrected.
Describe what aspect(s) of Mattisse's conduct concern(s) you in the incident(s) you have documented.
- The concern is that her mentors help her understand the need for and appropriate use of diffs, what a personal attack is (vis-a-vis stating my opinion that one of her mentors is harming more than helping the mentorship), that she not personalize discussions, and the importance of AGF and the benefit to her in improving good will by striking comments that are unsubstantiated.
Cite the Arbcom point(s) at issue, with specific links:
Describe what you think Mattisse could do to improve the situation and/or avoid similar problems in future:
- Work with her mentors to understand how to use supporting diffs and the importance of striking commentary that is unsupported. Learn to refrain from making comments about other editors unless they can be backed by a diff that cleary shows what she believes they show. By doing so, she will help everyone understand her better, and where the problems occur.
Describe what you expect the mentors/advisers could do to help resolve the issue(s):
- Be aware of when Mattisse makes unsubstantiated statements about other editors, how that is detrimental to a collegial working environment, and help her understand that diffs in commentary about other editors are as important as sources in an article, and should be taken seriously. Unsubstantiated comments about other editors will not help her towards the goals of the ArbCom.
Mentors' responses
Mattisse response
Discussion
I would also like to see someone add a link to the final ArbCom decision to the monitoring page, as Mattisse still seems confused about the difference between the final decision and the proposal page. If mentors want to move this to the main page as a sample of how the page should work, I don't mind, but I suggest it would be better used on talk as a sample only, to help work out any kinks in the system. I hope this example will show mentors staying focused on the issues with Mattisse's edits, rather than side issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Sample of how proposed process would work
(comment moved to User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring/Editorial comments , the proper forum for those not appointed as my mentors/advisers.)
- For clarity, Mattisse; are you asking that other editors no longer post to this talk page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Also, by moving my sample to User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring/Editorial comments instead of User:Mattisse/Monitoring/Editorial comments, there is no talk page associated with the Editorial comments page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Monitoring page (per My Plan)
- Please note that the page did seem to be working (in the last incident) until you moved a section from your talk page to the monitoring page. If editors aren't allowed to comment on your talk, and aren't allowed to comment here, the page will also fail. Are you now suggesting that this is not the page for recording concerns? That seems to go against the previous consensus among yourself and the mentors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- What I think at least Mattisse is saying is that the Monitoring page should be a place for 1) the complaints to be recorded, 2) Mattisse and her mentors to discuss the issue at hand, which I agree with. A record of problems and what the mentors and Mattisse have done about it should be clear and not muddied with discussion from other editors who may disagree with whatever is going on. Relevant discussions from other editors can go on this talk page. It will inevitably take place because we all have disparate views. The mentors will not hurt to take some advice--or at least get a different perspective--from those with whom Mattisse has had conflicts in the past.
- I want to make it clear at the moment that I disagree that the Monitoring page is archived so quickly, in less than 24 hours. It looks like editors are trying to hide something. I think it should be set on a 7-day minimum. --Moni3 (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- That's unclear, so I've asked Mattisse to clarify. Since she moved the sample from this talk page, I get the impression she doesn't want other editors commenting here either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- And, where are the mentors, as the page spins out again ? :) Mattisse, by moving this comment to my Sample, you separated it from the comment it was responding to, and added it to my Sample, which it was not originally part of. It is things like this that cause the page to spin out of control, and make it impossible for the mentors to follow what happened when they eventually show up. I set up an example of how the page might work; it has now been complicated by 1) a page move, 2) to a talk page rather than a user page, and 3) addition of comments that weren't part of the original Sample. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)