User talk:Moni3/Mattisse stewards arbcom

Troubles we want to avert / mitigate

I think it would help if we first list the troubles we want to avert / mitigate - the ArbCom evidence looks like the primary source. Feel free to strike out (not delete) any that appear incorrect. I've also set up a discussion sub-section. --Philcha (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, this should be a resolution that reinforces Mattisse's positive interactions and works with her to help her understand why certain comments are undesirable. I would like any stewards involved to be dedicated to both goals. --Moni3 (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) PS at present I'm just summarising accusations without any implication that they're justified or unjustified - they're all flashpoints. Sources:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Workshop. --Philcha (talk)

Accusations that Mattisse intitiates FARs and GARs in pursuit of vendettas rather than out of concern about article quality.
Accusations that Mattisse has been guilty of forum shopping.
Accusations of WP:HOUND.
Accusations of WP:POINT.
Situations where others may be guilty of forum shopping to Mattisse's detriment (allegation that "that GAR" was forum-shopped to AN/I).
Situations where others take a hostile / aggressive / snide approach, and Mattisse over-reacts.
Cases where, rightly or wrongly, Mattisse feels she is being threatened, especially by an admin.
Cases where, rightly or wrongly, Mattisse feels people are ganging up on her.
Any case where it appears that others are trying to exploit Mattisse's ArbCom case and RfCs agaist her.
Keeping of lists of editors perceive as being hostile.
Accused of playing "poor me"
Allegedly over-reacts if her recommendations are not accepted.

Supplied by Moni3:

Accusing editors of corruption
Commenting on editors' motivations
Taking disagreement personally
Approaching articles aggressively that are lacking somewhat, putting editors on the defensive from the start
Continuing to participate in processes while expressing an increasing dissatisfaction with editors and Wikipedia systems in general

List of troubles: discussion

Conflict of interest

Should Mattisse be restricted from reviewing articles written or otherwise heavily edited by any of the three stewards? --Moni3 (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non content-related talk pages

How much involvement should stewards have in comments made on users' or other talk pages? --Moni3 (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started typing my first reaction, then realised we may need a taxonomy. Cases I can think of off the top (please add others if appropriate)

Comments not connected with Mattise - no restrictions? If the discussion turns to Mattise (most likely by the other person's comments), invite the user to commnet at a public Talk page and post a link to their own Talk page). --Philcha (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Clarify "talk page" to mean the discussion here. --Moni3 (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments connected with Mattise on other stewards Talk pages - may be necessary, but it would be more helpful to do this on a Talk page set up, in connection with the panel of advisors. That way others whtba legitimate interest (and some without) will have it on their watchlists. --Philcha (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: if a steward is contacted regarding Mattisse's comments, it should be transferred to the discussion portion of the project page here, again, the editor who left the comment contacted and invited to participate in this forum. --Moni3 (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments connected with Mattise on other User Talk pages - avoid if at all possible. If not possible, place "real" comment at a public Talk page and leave just a link to that on the User Talk page. --Philcha (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand. Please clarify. --Moni3 (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on FARs, GARs and DYK pages - sub-optimal, as the long-term objective is to help Mattisse to handle situations herslef. May be necessary in the short run. If such a posting causes a row, we should consult among ourselves before further response. --Philcha (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Structure and presentation

Moni3, I know we've both been working very fast, largely off the top of our heads. This might be a good time to look at the presentation on the "panel" page. At present the list of things to be monitored appears in the lead - I think this should be in the main text so that the TOC summarises it. For the lead a statement of general objectives would be better. I suggest the list of things to be monitored should be divided by sub-heading, so it's apparent that some items are there to help M to avoid trouble or handle difficult situations more adroitly, some to protect her from attack by others, and some to deal with serious breaches of "parole" by Mattise. --Philcha (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am envisioning this to be the working page for the stewards, although I understand the Arbitration Committee decision should be worded the same way. I honestly don't know who forms those decisions or how. I kind of just expected a response to the ArbCom somehow linking to this page, saying, this is our offer of a resolution. You folks put it into decision format.

Anyone is free to edit the sandbox. If you want to reformat it as you see fit, please do. I have included what I envisioned. It's open to anyone concerned as long as stuff isn't removed and substitutions are agreed upon, I'm ok. --Moni3 (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Moni3, I've had a go at restructuring. Feel free to amend - or revert, if you think I've got it badly wrong.

Just realised I should explain that I think we'll need separate pages for the rules and for discussion of specific cases. Sorry, that's an assumption I carried over from discussion at Mattisse's Talk page. I think it's a reasonable approach, as discussions of specific cases will be archived in the course of time, but the current version of the rules should always be on display. --Philcha (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

repeat full stop

I think all activity that is not accomplished by Mattisse needs to come to a full stop. Mattise should have ownership of the names and number of her mentors (where did this number three come from?). Mattisse should have full ownership of her plan. Ling.Nut (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify that work on this entire proposal should be abandoned until Mattisse participates? If that is the case, I disagree. Her input is essential, yes, but she is absent now, there are other editors to consider in this process, and my particular concern is of her admission that she becomes so overwhelmed in the face of such opposition that she may not be able to propose something that is fair to all parties involved. If she rejects this proposal for being too...something... then we should discus what she wants. Without knowing what that is, this is what is offered instead. --Moni3 (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors are involved, but other editors were not requested to come up with a plan. Mattise is in charge. The 15-day deadline can be renegotiated if ample evidence of good faith work is seen. The key to feeling overwhelmed is to take things 1 step at a time. Step 1 is to pubicly reconfirm her commitment to working with mentors. Step 2 is to provide the number and names of the mentors. Step 3 is to begin working on a plan, step by step, one step at a time. Ling.Nut (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I responded also to the ArbCom decision talk page after I saw this page. I will continue the discussion there where more editors are following it. --Moni3 (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not sure either where this "three steward" system came from, and, in general, I agree with Ling.Nut. I feel three is too little. How about five or even seven (whether I'm in it or not)? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also posted at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed_decision#Edit_break about the "ownership" and "number of mentors" questions. --Philcha (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]