Literaturegeek (talk | contribs) |
Literaturegeek (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
:::::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. |
:::::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. [[User:Xavexgoem|Xavexgoem]] ([[User talk:Xavexgoem|talk]]) 18:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC) |
:::::You can discuss things here, but they're on my terms. [[User:Xavexgoem|Xavexgoem]] ([[User talk: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 [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+5%3A20&version=KJV 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 when scuro has successfully socially engineered your views with lies and distortions which you take at face value |
::::::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 [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+5%3A20&version=KJV 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!--[[User:Literaturegeek|<span style="color:blue">Literature</span><span style="color:red">geek</span>]] | [[User_talk:Literaturegeek |<span style="color:orange">''T@1k?''</span>]] 19:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:42, 19 October 2009
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)
- 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)