| Revision as of 15:05, 14 October 2009 editMattisse (talk | contribs)78,542 edits set up page | Revision as of 15:08, 14 October 2009 edit undoMattisse (talk | contribs)78,542 edits move comment to page for editors other than my mentors/advisersNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == 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 ] 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. ] (]) 14:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <big>This page is for comments and suggestions regarding my behavior by those other than my ArbCom-appointed mentors/advisers.</big> | <big>This page is for comments and suggestions regarding my behavior by those other than my ArbCom-appointed mentors/advisers.</big> | ||
Revision as of 15:08, 14 October 2009
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) This page is for comments and suggestions regarding my behavior by those other than my ArbCom-appointed mentors/advisers.