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,
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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,
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)