User:Scuro/Mentorship

Terms

We'll deal with sources and citations, other things that cross our minds, and I (Xav) will not: vouch for Scuro in any forum in his capacity as mentor, nor use admin tools against Scuro, nor use admin-tools for articles or users Scuro is himself involved with, nor revert any edit made to any of those articles (aside from vandalism).

Success (that is, release from mentorship) will be defined by my (Xav's) Holy Decree. Neither Xav nor Scuro will take this too too seriously, and the mentor (Xav) defines what is "too serious" and "too silly", but he is of course open to suggestion.

Signed,

• Xavexgoem (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

How could I refuse that offer? I accept. Important details can be worked out later. Right now what is crossing my mind is that I believe that the amendment request should not be shutdown before some serious issues have been addressed by arb com for the first time. No one should be able to continuously make false accusations and speak ill of you in wikipedia. I think that holds especially true during sanction processes when people's emotions are already heightened. This happened during the amendment request, it has happened at every sanction event starting with the topic ban. I believe there would be over a hundred examples...possibly hundreds of examples. I strongly believe that it should be addressed now because we are here, it has never been addressed formally, and this has gone on for far too long. I want a solution, and I'm willing to make any pledge, such as strictly focus on content and never the contributor. That is an easy solution if the others would follow.--scuro (talk) 05:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I had a whole speech lined up, but I figured I'd ask what the accusations are, first :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 07:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Your throwing me off balance by listening and responding. :D

For current background you can look at the amendment request.[1] where I listed their accusations that I felt needed to be supported right after my response to the second amendment. The amendment request itself is a bogus request. That is the problem. In any sort of work environment one can't go around month after month, making bogus accusations about your coworkers and filing grievances every time there is a disagreement. It would be worse to virtually never truly back up what you are saying when challenged to do so. I've pointed out this problem many times, right from the start of our disagreements, and no administrator has ever formally acknowledge that the problem exists. This wouldn't happen in the workplace, one way or the other one of the parties would have to recant, and seek amends, or risk getting fired. I've offered to solve this anyway possible, dozens and dozens of times. We did get collaboration for a few days under the threat of a topic ban but that has been about it. So Xavexgoem, each accusation in itself is forgivable and a major stumbling block. What is not tolerable is that this is allowed to continue. I want this problem formally acknowledged, and the goal should be that it stop. That is how it would be done in a workplace.

This mentorship will involve taking better advantage of allegations against you. Every office needs a good boss: I will be mentoring you to be one. I completely agree that dishonest allegations are a problem -- a major problem -- and that it needs to be better addressed. But allegations get spread around: X did Y to Z, but Z did Y to X, etc., etc., ad nauseum. It's so much to sift through, and it's considered common sense not to go about lying anyway. This is addressed in every arb case under the preamble section of decorum and civility.

It's Wikipedia, gentlemen; the Gods will not save you. There are no true bosses, just good examples to set, and so it goes. Xavexgoem (talk) 11:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

thanksgiving

It is our Canadian thanksgiving this weekend. I doubt there will be much time to make further entries this weekend till late Monday or Tuesday.--scuro (talk) 10:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, cya then. Happy thanksgiving :-)

Then show me how to do this. The goal is to make it stop, and it should stop soon because this has been going on for over a half year. This wouldn't bother me if in the end the focus was simply the case and facts but that hasn't always been the case. Arbitration went forward with many obviously false allegations, and the false accusation that there was a consensus during the attempted topic ban, but there wasn't. This amendment request is a perfect example of false accusations because the allegations are pretty well groundless, or at least totally overblown for this forum, especially considering that they had made no attempt at reconciliation or even earnest discusion before hand. It is easy to see what is happening. It is very irritating and disheartening when something so obviously wrong is allowed to continue.--scuro (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

more stuff on my mind

What I am pointing out is that there are parallels between past cases and the arb amendment request. That things happened which shouldn't have happened, and that these things continue. I understand and think it is a worthy ideal that wikipedia is a culture quick to forgive and forget. But when someone persistently disrupts another editor, that is another can of worms, especially when these accusations help get sanction processes started, and possibly even contributed to sanctions being applied. This is a form of abuse and I don't think wikipedia's ideals go so far as to match Jesus's ideals, in that one is to turn one's check forever.

Right now I am under a voluntary topic block because the administrators felt that a topic ban was necessary after it was requested in the AR(false accusations). The assumption of guilt and the required action is disruptive to my production. I can't think of any action that would disrupt an editor more then to constantly make false accusations against them and file groundless sanction processes.

That's doesn't mean that I am unwilling to work within the framework of wikipedia, and seek reconciliation. Before, there was no attempt at dialogue. It is a positive development that Literaturegeek is talking with me no matter how slow the pace of the conversation goes. Still, there has been a major wrong done here and without acceptance of that fact, and an attempt at reconciliation, I don't see another way forward. If you see a better path then point some more in that direction. Sometimes it takes me longer to see something so have patience!!--scuro (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Am I right to assume that one of the terms for this mentorship is to get the arbitration committee to go about investigating false accusations? Xavexgoem (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The terms are simple, it's about sourcing and citations. Before arbitration I didn't know how to cite in the current up to date form. When I was being blocked off the page by edit waring, I refused to edit the article and they wanted citations on the talk page. At that time I refused. That's where the sourcing part of it remedy comes from. Really we can work together in whatever capacity is good. You are a help in letting me talk about what is on my mind. Sometimes things are easier to deal with if you can talk to someone. I'm sure there will be times when my stance is unreasonable. I don't know what your role is if you believe a wrong is being done. I don't expect anything of you. I did interject rather boldly into the arb amendment request that it not be closed till this issue be dealt with. It looked like they wanted to close it , and it made me feel uncomfortable demanding something, but I really feel this issue needs to be dealt with in that forum. I was given permission to file my own amendment request. I don't know what to do in this situation. Sometimes times advice on the proper course of action would be very helpful.--scuro (talk) 11:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, sorry; kind of jumping the gun, there, on my part.

Of course, it's your prerogative, but you have to consider if this is a fool's errand. I'm thinking that, after reading individual arb statements and them recommending mentorship to you, that the committee will be hesitant or reluctant to issue a statement that may be perceived to be on your behalf. In addition, it adds much more weight to them, yourself, and others... this will not improve the situation. Even if they were to issue a blanket statement saying "don't go around alleging things", do you believe that the others would stop? Wouldn't they accuse you of stalling tactics?

Suppose they didn't stop the allegations. Suppose the arbitration committee didn't want to look into it. Suppose arbitration enforcement didn't have the know-how or want to sort through all the diffs. What then?

Suppose they did stop. What are the chances of this?

Now, please: suppose they didn't stop and you didn't care. Which of these is more likely to help you? Xavexgoem (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm disappointed. Does arb really work that way? That clear injustices are not considered because of: optics, effort in finding the truth, or potential fallout?? This problem needs to be addressed..someway and somehow. What is happening now is dysfunctional. This is not a new issue which has just been pointed out for leverage. I've pointed it out for half a year and nothing has been done. I've pointed it out during the topic ban proposal, and arbitration and my words were ignored. I'm pointing it out again now and no one wants to deal with it, or offer a solutions beyond the idea that if I ignore it, it doesn't matter. The read of the situation is wrong. They are not making things up about me to get my goat. They are making things up about me because they can, and it gets things done. Consider the behaviour post-arbitration. Consider who has the sanction process filed against them and who is on an edit restriction.--scuro (talk) 03:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you give me a specific accusation to work through? Xavexgoem (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

She has probably made the accusation that I drive "editors away", throughout the 1/2 year that we had conflict, at several sanction requests. She made it again at the AR. Below is what I wrote at topic ban request, and repeated at arbitration.

"Abd was the one who originally stated that I drove Ss06470, the self published Psychiatrist, off of Wikipedia. This notion was picked up by several of the other involved parties. Abd made no mention that Ss06470 had already been rebuked for being abusive by an administrator two months before I joined Wikipedia. [2] or that Ss06470 was abusive to others as one can see in his comments about another contributor: "You are pathetic" ... [[3]] "Oh right. Your illness interferes with this capacity to concentrate on things you don't like." [[4]] He wasn't any nicer to me, ( "No Scuro You are not powerful. Nor clever. Instead of holding forth why don't you take a look at the Frontline program and quietly consider what is being presented there? Then you can decide if your opponents are getting smoked. Most of the "experts" on that show emphasized how little we really know. You might also take a look at Benedict Carey's articles in the New York Times on this subject. Then if you have any integrity at all you will change your tone and perhaps go away and allow those with considered ideas to discuss the issues. But then I'm sure you won't. You wouldn't be Scuro if you gave any thought to your opinions". ) As the facts show, Ss06470 received two more warnings from a different administrator [[5]] [[6]] and after that he didn't edit for 11 weeks. His edits tailed off significantly after the third administrative warning. So, Abd's contention that I drove him off Wikipedia is shaky at best. Hordaland was honest enough to state the obvious once the facts were presented, "Yeah, I've checked out some of that before. No angel, the good doctor".--scuro (talk) 11:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you ask Abd why s/he thought you were responsible? Xavexgoem (talk) 11:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I did ask Abd several times. I made a point of asking him directly after the rebuttal was posted. He had several opportunities to respond but never answered. At a separate arbitration, he was recently admonished for making accusations which he never backed up. LG replied to my rebuttal to Abd, so she was aware of the facts within this rebuttal, yet she continues to make the accusation.--scuro (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

At the topic ban proposal, Abd makes the accusation that I drove off "at least" one "expert". He is referring to Ss06470, who left for a while about a year and a half ago. Literturegeek picks up on this and runs with it. It's like she never read the evidence I presented, nor did she pick up that that Abd never defended his accusation even when challenged directly twice here [7]. The lone bogus example that Abd refers to morphs into the plural under LG. I am now driving "editors" away.[8]--scuro (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatamidoing

Thought I'd take a look at your talk page, to see who might happen to coincidentally pop up there. I see that Whatamidoing wrote some unflattering stuff. I thought I'd give you some perspective now that she has injected herself into our relationship. She posted at the topic ban proposal and made a statement at the arbitration request. I challenged that statement [9] at arbitration, and like several others who made accusations, she didn't respond. There's a pattern there. :D --scuro (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not about them. I need to know what you feel you need to work on. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well in a way it is about them, and my reaction to them. I think it very unfair what has always been allowed to happen, without even one formal mention to date. Have I ever initiated the personalization of any issue on an administrator's talk page? There are probably a dozen examples or more of the badmouthing of me on administrator talk pages. They do this because they can and I imagine because they believe it gets things done. I think they may have swayed one administrator in the past who filed several sanction processes against me. You can't ignore that, especially when falsehoods lead to sanction events being started,.i.e. meat puppetry allegation, and possibly have been a deciding factor in sanctions being applied. From my vantage point it is right to point out ongoing patterns of behaviour that lead to animosity, especially when this is unfair. It frustrates me to no end that issues are constantly personalized. When I point this out with clear and obvious examples no one takes me seriously. It doesn't matter what you think of me, wrong is wrong. Help in finding resolution to this huge problem would be appreciated.

I am getting somewhere with LG. A meeting of the minds could solve this. Help in navigating that to a positive outcome is something I could use help with. Finally I could use help with editing on the page when several editors disagree or ignore my viewpoint. That is an important issue because on some issues I am the only one to argue for majority viewpoint.--scuro (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've dug my own hole

There have been a number of significant behaviours that have been unfair in my dealings with the sanction processes. Too often facts and issues become obscured by a personalization of issues, badmouthing, and falsehoods. When this stuff reappears time and again, it irks me to no end. Still, i've got to admit that always challenging this stuff may not be in my best interest. Currently, Whatamidoing is upset and posting some rather nasty and incendiary stuff on this talk page. Pragmatically speaking, I know that nothing good can come from taking her up on her challenge at this moment in time.

When such situations are personalized and castigate me in a negative light, I have misstepped, and the outcome can lead to unimaginable drama that often surprises me in: it's length, it's venom, and side tangents. Of course once it begins, you have that "wall of words", and the issue that needs to be addressed is lost to those who most need to see it. So ya, help!--scuro (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

:-)

If someone is being unreasonable, you already have the upper-hand. A steady voice of reason (even if you're gritting your teeth typing it) will always overcome. Extending olive-branches always helps, as does asking questions. There are two tools in my arsenal: ? and :-) (you have to do the smiley-face without irony; you have to mean it, and whoever you're talking to needs to know that)

Whatamidoing has given you an out: what are the unsupported claims? May not have gotten to the question in the best way, but it's an area where you two can at least try to figure stuff out. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a different take on it. The nastiness was uncalled for. The question here is what purpose does she have in connecting my name in a disparaging way, to Mattisse on a post, on your talk page? She did that twice by name in two separate sentences. That question was never properly answered. She obviously knows of our brand new mentoring relationship so the optics here are not good at all. I'm not at all keen about communicating with someone who belittles me and demands with bolded letters that I must respond immediately. You may think of me as a drama queen ;-), but even I don't want any part of that! Was that the proper use of the mr. smiley :-)?--scuro (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It was nasty. The nastiness will stop if you don't engage nasty people with nastiness.

You are in an entrenched dispute. People will be hot-headed, and there's nothing you can do about it: firstly, because escalation is seen by this community (and I'd warrant most communities) as nastiness in itself; and secondly, you don't have the political capital to spend at this juncture.

You are to read this now: meatball:SoftResponse. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Would it make your day if I told you that I read it!?? What now, I am awaiting a command!!! :-) --22:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)