User:PalestineRemembered/InterferenceWithMentoingProcess

Interference with the Mentoring process
It has been repeatedly stated that my mentoring has not worked or that my mentors have resigned in frustration.

The truth is that mentoring (imposed by the long disbanded "Community Sanction Noticeboard"), when working, has had the reverse effect to the one intended, since it's tended to indicate that none of my editing is problematical.


 * User:Jaakobou of mentor Geni: "I've been recently getting a tad frustrated with Geni's lack of response to the accumulative and exauhstive nature of the problem, to which i recieved a response that she not only does not see a problem, but also that she never believed there was ever a problem to begin with. 07:59, 8 October 2007
 * User:Jaakobou of mentor Geni: "Geni is aware that PR has not made any "breaches of 2RR" (perhaps one) and she's managed to come up with a suggestion that circumvents all the raised issues. in retrospect i'm not entirely sure Geni's proposals are in good faith 01:01, 12 October 2007
 * User:Jaakobou to mentor User:Kendrick7 what to do with "edit summary ... is something that the mentorship should discuss rather than dismiss" (this after just days, 7th to the 9th Nov 2007!) That comment mysteriously disappeared - but evidence for its existence is still visible here.
 * User:Jaakobou to mentor: "User:Zscout370, care to make a mission statement such as "what sanctions would you implement for which breaches" and how do you perceive each of the violations mentioned on the open ANIs? this is no joke, two mentors already allowed repeated violations and I see no statement by you to suggest you take this issue seriously" 19:13, 11 October 2007

Diligent editors will want to know - why was "mentoring" imposed on me in the first place? Answer - I suspected another editor of a serious Conflict of Interest, and when a denial was not forthcoming, I pressed the question harder (perhaps too hard). The editor in question has still not confirmed or denied this potentially serious breach of editing conduct, as at least two other editors wanted to know. PRtalk 09:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)