User talk:Scuro/Mentorship

Flattery gets you nowhere

Scuro, I'm sorry that my wish that you not be subjected to the same trauma that Mattisse is dealing with falls into the category of "unflattering stuff". Would you consider it more flattering for me to hope for the opposite? Or is it unflattering for me to notice that you're stuck in a dispute with very few allies and deeply entrenched opponents?

I'm also sorry that you're still angry that I didn't duplicate the very diffs that you, yourself, provided, to statements that you plainly admit on the page you linked, in an ArbCom case that I did not participate in. See your first sentence: "Although WhatamIdoing has not joined this arbitration...".

I'm frankly not sure how I was supposed to provide the diffs without joining the case, but if you're still upset, I'd be happy to copy the diffs out of your own statement to Arb Comm and provide them to you, on any page of your choice, as evidence for your further review, but frankly I think it would be a waste of your time: You know that the statements were fundamentally accurate (even if you dislike how I describe them), you know that the diffs exist (because how else could you have provided them?), and you admit that you misunderstood what I said (see the "My apologies if I misinterpreted the meaning of what you said" statement).

I'm happy to let you think this over for a day or two, but I request that you choose between requesting the diffs immediately, or permanently stop your complaints that I didn't provide the diffs that you already had. I resent being painted as a liar who can't back up her statements, especially when you are already in possession of the supporting evidence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Somehow you thought it important to connect my name with Matisse's name, in two separate sentences, even though the post was all about Matisse. By "unflattering I meant this quote, "And, like Scuro, Mattisse really doesn't want the conversation on her user talk page. (Anyone who gets that many complaints would develop a twitch whenever the new message box pops up.)".[1] I see that Hordaland has now also popped up on Xavexgoem's talk page offering advice about what to do. Really I don't think Xavexgoem wants you speaking disparagingly of other editors on his talk page, and he doesn't want "advice" either. Frankly, I think he is none to happy about any of this, probably most of all with myself for sticking my nose into this. So perhaps it would be best to leave this one alone, if that unsupported statement becomes an issue of importance, we can tackle it at that time.--scuro (talk) 05:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

How can that possibly be unflattering or disparaging? Anyone that has received as many negative comments as you and Mattisse have, despite apparently trying to get along with editors, would not be pleased to see new messages, because (based on a purely rational analysis of past experience), odds are that the new message is another message from someone who is mad at you. Even if they "shouldn't" be upset with you, it's still unpleasant.

You have clearly stated that you don't want conversations on your user talk page (e.g., [2]), and I take this as a sign that you're beginning to feel as badgered as Mattisse. Would it be more 'flattering' for me to conclude that the opposite? Is it 'disparaging' for me to suggest that you've been under attack for a long time -- an opinion that I believe you shared wholeheartedly?

But my point is this: if there is any 'unsupported statement', it's an issue right now, because it's an issue for me. The choice available to you is to either identify the statement(s) that you still believe are unsupported -- and I'll provide you with the diffs to support it -- or give me your word that you'll never again drag this baseless claim into another conversation. Do you understand your options? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out

I’d just like to point out that scuro, Literaturegeek, Jmh649, Unionhawk, WhatamIdoing and myself are parties to the amendment request (as all were informed by myself on 19 September). All of these people, as parties, should have watchlisted the amendment request page and might be expected to follow each other around to whatever extent.

• 5 October, Scuro wrote on Literaturegeek’s talk page: "There has been a cast of characters who seem to be following me around. ;) (later edit - See, look who just popped onto my talk page!)." That remark involved an entry, same date, on scuro’s talk page by WhatamIdoing.

• 10 October , Xav wrote on the amendment request page: "I just want to inform the committee that I've picked up Scuro as his mentor," and that was confirmed on the same page, same date, by Carcharoth. All of us have known about the mentoring relationship since then.

• WhatamIdoing has since written about the mentorship on Xav’s talk page (14 October) and on the mentorship talk page (18 October) and scuro correctly notes here that I (Hordaland) have "now also popped up on Xavexgoem's talk page."

• 18 October, Scuro wrote on his mentorship page: "She obviously knows of our brand new mentoring relationship." (Where she = WhatamIdoing.) It sounds like this surprises scuro, however, everyone had known this for a week at that point.

The "cast of characters" would naturally follow the case and, after investing so much time and effort in it, would hope for a favorable outcome for all. We all have very different styles and approaches, which everyone needs to take into account by showing good faith. That includes not imagining bad intentions when none were intended. - Hordaland (talk) 06:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I realize that, but I do think that the talk page isn't the best place for these discussions. I'd rather they went to my or Scuro's talkpage. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why. This was mainly a factual timeline which I saw a need for. And both of you have signaled: no comments to talk page. Shouldn't be a problem; I hope I can just stay out of it. :-) - Hordaland (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being overly cautious :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

So in your story, an editor who has a long-standing dispute with Scuro, based on his persistent and possibly willful misrepresentation of documentable facts, is (1) not allowed to post on Scuro's page about the problem, (2) not allowed to post on your page about the problem, and (3) not allowed to post here about the problem -- even though the problem has manifested on this page.

I have ruled out letting Scuro continue to smear me this way whenever he finds it convenient. Your proposed restrictions on communication leaves escalation to an RfC/U -- which is my plan if Scuro doesn't choose to resolve this Real Soon Now -- or to run back to ArbCom with further evidence that Scuro is not willing to resolve even quite simple disputes. Are there any other significant options that you think I've missed?

I would personally prefer to resolve this here and now, and I suspect that Scuro would prefer the one-on-one approach that I've offered him to an RfC/U. I am perfectly capable of documenting every single claim I have made about Scuro. The only question in my mind is whether he, on reviewing what he's already got, will realize that he is in already possession of the evidence, or if he wants to have it re-presented or amplified for his enlightenment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No: I'd rather you not posted here, and that you should post at Scuro's or my talkpage. Part of the reason for that is I'd rather the mentoree has a place to discuss these issues than go elsewhere with a hot-head.

You can discuss things here, but they're on my terms. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

On your terms? I am not sure if you own this page? Is there a policy for this? I must say that you seem to have a rather hostile attitude. Anyway the talk page here is probably not the most ideal and I think the main space of the mentorship would be more appropriate as that is where accusations are being made. It never ceases to amaze me at how easily humans are so easily socially engineered and manipulated. It was almost laughable when scuro turned truth into lies and lies into truth and then envoked Jesus Christ to you to make himself look the "righteous one" and based on your responses you have clearly bought into his games of playing the victim role. Kind of reminds me of this verse. You may be perplexed at why editors are not best pleased with how scuro is abusing his mentorship and how you are enabling the abuse of the mentorship. How can we not be pleased when scuro has successfully socially engineered your views with lies and distortions which you take at face value? Many editors have endured years of these games, but you are simply believing the lies and distortions and agreeing at how terrible other editors are and how he has been victimised etc and then advising him at how better to "defeat us". Arbcom was meant to resolve this behaviour but you as a mentor seem to be feeding it! We had all hoped that a mentor would be neutral and non-biased but unfortunately this has not happened. It is NOT our fault that scuro is lying and twisting things and it is NOT our fault that you are believing it!--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

LG, I think it's unfair to assume that Xav's decision not to call Scuro on every single detail means that Xav has actually "believed" any particular claim, posture, or statement (made by anyone at all). A detailed and public analysis of the veracity of each word is not necessary to provide advice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

He didn't seem to call scuro on anything. Scuro was bad mouthing, character assassinating editors but when for example yourself tried to defend yourself your actions were labeled nasty. This may have been ok if the mentor was also labeling scuro's distortions and character assassinations as nasty but it seemed the opposite was true. Perhaps it was unfair to assume Xav had believed a claim or not. I have struck out my comments but the rest of my post still stands. I felt we were being treated one way and scuro another, like compare for example hostile comments like "you can discuss things here, but they're on my terms" which was aimed at you whatamIdoing and calling you nasty with how scuro was treated. For the most part I and others raised valid concerns at the mentorship and we had a right to defend ourselves. I made extensive efforts to resolve issues with scuro on my talk page,User_talk:Literaturegeek#compromise despite character assassination of I and others going on on the mentorship page. This was why I felt it necessary to speak my mind on what I felt to be unfairness.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Xav's job is not to reprimand Scuro: it's to provide advice. If Scuro chooses to follow the advice that Xav has already given, this issue could be resolved no more than two posts.

I do not choose to be offended by Scuro's decision that my insistence that he quit making this baseless accusation is "nasty". I am focused on convincing him that every single claim I made is trivially demonstrable. Every single sentence can be supported by links to the related ArbCom pages. I will no longer have "the diffs weren't duplicated in this particular place" presented as "Scuro couldn't defend himself because the evidence was hidden from him". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of this; sorry I should have been more clear, I was referring to Xav "agreeing" with scuro that you were being nasty. I know his job as a mentor is not to reprimand scuro but if he is going to pass judgement on scuro's foes then he should at least be fair about it was all my point was or better still remain neutral and not pass judgements. If xav comes back or another mediator is found, perhaps we should request that they do not pass judgement on other editors and try to take a neutral tone? Also we should be able to defend ourselves against false accusations or else scuro asked by mentor to limit or avoid completely character assassinating other editor. What do you think?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Scuro has repeatedly requested that editors not use his talk page. Xav, I'm really not sure how to interpret your recent request as anything other than a request that no one post about Scuro to yours. And now you don't want a problem on this page to be address on its own talk page. What's left? I can't talk to Scuro through your e-mail address.

I have plenty of time this week, and I want this niggling problem solved permanently, independent of any other consideration. If Scuro wants diffs, I will provide diffs -- as many as are necessary to satisfy him that diffs were truly available. If he decides that he already has entirely sufficient information, I will accept a plain statement that he no longer finds himself lacking any information and that he will never again claim to be lacking any such information.

The location of the discussion is unimportant to me, but there will be a discussion, and it will be soon. Specifically, Scuro can either choose to resolve this today, on any page of his choosing, or Scuro can choose for me to start drafting the RfC/U tomorrow afternoon.

Note that I do not ask for, expect, or want an apology or his agreement that my view of his success on Wikipedia is correct: I want to make sure that Scuro never makes this particular baseless accusation against me in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I figured it was a better option to contact me privately, lest this happen. It was not an exclusion of other options. I'm out. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Quitting mentorship

Can't deal with this. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No hard feelings, we or at least I understand, we have been dealing with this drama for months or some of us years. It is tough!--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry. As I've said in a couple of venues, Xav should be given time to work in her/his own way -- and was only getting started. Would it be possible to continue the mentorship by e-mail, without an audience at every turn? - Hordaland (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

don't do it!!!

Xavegoem, I really, REALLY, want you not to quit. :-) You have helped me already and I have real hope knowing that I can talk to you. Sometimes I see the "wall of words", like above, and it feels pretty hopeless. When I am in dispair, with no one to talk to, you don't always make the right decisions.

Solutions here, are really simple.

I am sorry that I called everyone a, "cast of characters". You are all different, and are different in your approach. For instance I have to say that I am impressed with LIteraturegeek's willingness to continue talking and seeking solutions. This is a positive event and I really hope she continues.

Whatiamdoing, I will respond to you at some point if you really desire that, but I do expect an apology. You were mean above. If you are willing to apologize, post the apology on your talk page. In ten days post your initial statement that you made at the arb com request, my response at arbitration, and what questions you want answered. I need a bit of distance. Does that sound reasonable?

If everyone is still assuming good faith, you could make me VERY happy if any of you start a mediation cabal. :-D Literaturegeek and I have agreed to the principle of undue weight and fringe sources. Common ground can be found easily. We can all agree not to be abusive. There is much we can agree to if we have good faith.

Finally, if you feel that my behaviour has crossed the line, post on your talk page, if the conversation is one on one, I will respond, and continue to respond. I'd use my talk page but don't want to get into the hassle of policing conversations. If that is not suitable, you have every right to file an ANI or RFC. Carcharoth has made it clear that he doesn't want further posting on the arbitration amendment request. I'm pretty sure Xavegoem doesn't want it on his talk page, and I certainly don't want a "wall of words" on my talk page. As for this page, I think you folks really should back off. This talk page is about a mentorship relationship period.

Xavegoem, let me know what I can do differently and I will. My world is a brighter place with you in it!! :D --scuro (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to state that I believe Xavegoem's intentions were well meant and he should be respected for volunteering his own personal time to scuro. I feel that he did not anticipate nor appreciate what way his words were being interpreted. I believe that he is a good person. It is sad to see so many people come and then leave. He is another statistic I guess of editors who end up leaving this drama. I can't blame him for quitting, it is very stressful. I know how it feels.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Scuro, I am willing to hear what you wish to be apologized to about.

I am not willing to let this drag on for another ten days. Your choices are to identify all of the statements I have made that you think are unsupported -- so that I can provide you with the diffs that you apparently need -- or to announce that you are permanently satisfied that all statements are not unsupported, or to have me start drafting the RfC/U case tomorrow afternoon (Pacific time). If you actually lack information that you need, just tell me, and I will provide it. If you do not lack this information, then you must quit saying that you do.

This is not the first time that I have asked you to stop these unfair complaints, and I refuse to be party to any further delaying tactics in resolving this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to talk to my mentor about this because I don't think that my request is unreasonable. Simple request, can you folks make the commitment that I made above, "Xavegoem, let me know what I can do differently and I will". If we have caused him stress then we can also remove that stress. There will be no better mentor then Xavegoem, and no better chance to move forward.--scuro (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You are free to seek any advice you wish. I only say that if you have not either identified the supposedly unsupported statements, or admitted that they are in fact supported, by Tuesday afternoon Pacific time, then I'm going to start drafting an RfC/U.

That's a promise that nothing short of being stuck in a hospital will keep me from fulfilling.

What you choose to do is entirely up to you: I am only telling you what I choose to do about your baseless accusations, in what I hope is a manner that leaves no doubt in your mind about what my choice is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to tell you that my conversations on this topic, on this talk page, ends with this post. You know where and how to start up an immediate conversation. If this is a tightly time limited thing with stringent unbending demands, do what you have to do, I don't respond to that sort of dialogue.--scuro (talk) 02:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not making any demands, much less "stringent unbending" ones. I am telling you what choice I have made. What you choose to do is entirely up to you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)