User:Privatemusings/A walk on a path in a garden/A threefold path to enlightenment

Enlightenment!
This outlines the mentorship process. It was mutually agreed to by the three mentors and the mentoree at the start of the process:


 * 1 month - PM posts to his garden, before making them, any BLP changes he wishes to make. We vet them, if at least 1 of us say OK, go forward and make them. PM posts to (somewhere), before making them, any posts, broadly construed, that might fit into "what ArbCom was worried about" (cases, policy and the like)... if at least 2 of us say ok, go forward. If there is any major issue with either (i.e. whatever two of us say it is) then the clock resets to the start of the month.


 * 1 month - PM posts to his garden, in advance, notation that he's "interested" in a particular BLP. After at least a day with no adverse comment, go forth and make the change(s), and then document either broadly or via diff, what it was for our review. PM posts to (somewhere), before making them, any posts, broadly construed, that might fit into "what ArbCom was worried about" (cases, policy and the like)... if at least 1 of us say ok, go forward. If there is any major issue with either (whatever two of us say it is) then the clock resets back to the beginning of the month (or to the beginning of the first month if we think it egregious enough, all three of us need to concur on that)


 * 1 month - PM goes on about his business. At least once a week he posts links to BLPs and "what ArbCom was worried about" posts, for review (after the fact... he CAN post about stuff before the fact if he wishes). We can review or comment, or say nothing (signifies no issues if nothing said after a few days). If there is any major issue (whatever two of us say it is) then the clock resets back to the beginning of the month (or to the beginning of the first month if we think it egregious enough, all three of us need to concur on that)

At the end of three months, we report back to ArbCom that all is peachy...

Result: "enlightenment" !!!!

reflections after a reboot
being an email sent through to my mentors

G'day,

so here's the full 'where we're at' attempt :-)

I have thoroughly enjoyed the process largely, and believe that it has had much value - it's certainly encouraged me to think through aspects of my editing inclinations, most particularly with a view to understanding what current policy and practice is (things like whether or not to 'prod' an unsourced BLP). I'm also pleased to have contributed photos to some BLP articles, and raise awareness of a few (in my view pretty serious) problems.

There may be a tension in my understanding of how we've been going, and yours however, which is a shame, and we can and should talk that through - it's not my intention to disappoint, or fail to 'keep my side' of the mentoring bargain :-)

I like the idea of focusing on an article, but am concerned (most particularly in light of the above) that setting 'pass / fail' metrics isn't the only way forward - I appreciate the sincere belief that working on content develops 'clue', but I'm afraid I see much evidence that some amazing content editors are actually held in relative contempt, and some very weak content contributors wield influence and power irresponsibly, and occasionally shamefully. Perhaps this is a 'clue' I'm happy not to have. In short, I believe I have an FA or two in me (along with a great novel, of course), and in time I hope they'll emerge, notwithstanding my commentary and ideas about other matters like a biographical opt-out for non public figures, or the desire for a calm review of a controversial situation.

...which brings me nicely on to the 'Moulton' AN thread. I posted that thread in good faith, and believe that it has helped clarify the existing community position. My understanding is that the reset of my mentoring 'clock' relates to the fact that I should have understood that this post was a bad idea (or that you believe it was in fact a 'stunt' - with the implication that it wasn't designed to help in any way) - and further, that the post represents a clear breach of the structure posted by Lar on the 'threefold path' page. I can understand your perspectives (sure, a reasonable person could have predicted that this could have caused a fuss, and it's not too huge a leap to extrapolate that into considering it something 'arbcom was worried about') - but I think the cleanest way forward will be for us to focus the mentoring programme from here on in on BLP issues alone. Personally, I obviously wish that you guys hadn't felt it neccessary to reset the clock, and I'd like to edit unencumbered as sooon as possible by any means, really - but I'm hopeful of getting back on a good foot, and working together for 3 more months.... there's no deadline, right :-)

I think the benefits of transparency and clear communication warrant me posting this on-wiki too, and for the same reasons, I think we should try and ensure material communications (decisions, agreements etc.) remain 'on wiki' in the future too ('diff.s or it didn't happen', right?). I'd like to apologise for my part in less-than-perfect communication, hopefully now resolved.

happy to talk through any or all of this,

best,

Privatemusings (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)