User talk:Enkyo2/Subpage Mentorship-A

→  see also: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty 

NOTE: This sandbox/workshop page is for invited mentors only. --Tenmei (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

1st proposed posting at active ArbCom thread
The topic is tentatively something to do with missing the point? misunderstanding accidentally on purpose?

This is a working draft effort to craft a non-verbose response to Carcharoth's diffs here and here.

The work involved in creating this page helped to clarify my thinking. I don't know that it would be politically smart to post this, but it is important for the mentors to understand how I perceive these issues. The reasoning which informs this analysis will likly recur in other situations in which i perceive parallels.

Do you have any questions? comments? --Tenmei (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: The is already posted in the thread.
 * Response to Carcharoth – Raising the bar

"suitable mentor"


 * A.  [Compare diff.]
 * B.  [Compare diff.]
 * C. [Compare diff.]


 * ''' --Tenmei (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Editing block is counter productive; hypotheticals = time sink


 * Executive summary: A demonstrable fallacy derives when WP:AFG is construed to elevate mere dictum as somehow superior to a syllogistic statement which is consistent with Wikipedia's core policies.


 * Fallacy ≠ WP:AGF = Dictum ≥ Syllogism = WP:AGF = core policies


 * I fully embrace the utility of a mentoring task force and mentorship; but I find no plausible reasons to support the concept of ArbCom's approval nor its specious imprimatur.


 * There is one thing which can change my mind immediately &mdash; if this thread is expanded to encompasses express support and encouragement and thanks for the volunteer mentors, then this otherwise heedless jumping through hoops becomes worthwhile.

ARGUMENT (DGG & Tenmei) ¶ A •I joined Wikipedia do improve its quality. •I recognized it would be a slow process. •It does not surprise me that it is not faster, and I thus have no reason to get angry because I had misjudged he difficulty. •I am, however, beginning to get exasperated at those who would prevent me and the others from improving it ."DGG


 * NON-RESPONSE (ArbCom = Carcharoth )
 * Tenmei, if you want DGG to comment here, by all means invite him to do so.


 * DISCONNECT
 * •Both DGG and Tenmei complain mildly about a TIME SINK which explictly, directly and significantly inhibits the on-going process of working on articles which we call "encyclopedia building."
 * •Carcharoth, who is assumed to be expressing views which are congruent with those of ArbCom colleagues, not only ignores the exasperation &mdash; the sense of frustration is enlarged when implicit acknowlegment is married to dismissive rejection.

¶ B We have serious content problems, but they to a considerable extent are inseparable from the inherent problems of any project like ours that operates without editorial control: •the need for truly competent referencing •[the need] for understandable writing •[the need] for balance in coverage between and among articles •[the need] for •the need to [for] updating every article in Wikipedia in a regular and reliable manner."DGG In other words, "The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing." &mdash; Kraftlos

.


 * It is ironic that:
 * •DGG's words were drafted in a distinctly different context than this thread, but the summary of core issues is fully congruent with the Tang Dynasty case.


 * •Disputes with Tenmei display recurring patterna and common elements, e.g.,
 * &mdash;>Dictum =
 * vs
 * &mdash;>Syllogism =


 * •DGG expresses opinion about articles with no reference sources.


 * In other words, "The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing." &mdash; Kraftlos

Axioms, work in progress
The genesis of Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty developed after Coren was able to express what I had been previously unable to put into words:
 * AXIOM #1: It is prudent to adopt the words of Coren as my own BECAUSE > Having been identified as a ArbCom candidate in 2008, Coren's words here resist being devalued with WP:TLDR.

The genesis of a counter-argument in the context of this ArbCom clarification thread developed after DGG was able to express what I had been previously unable to put into words:
 * AXIOM #2: It is prudent to adopt the words of DGG as my own BECAUSE > Having been identified as a "suitable mentor", DGG's words here resist being devalued with WP:TLDR.

Harsh analysis, work in progress
SUMMARY/ANALYSIS ¶ C The only explanation I can come to is that this is the unthinking reaction of people who recognize they have no hope of dealing with the real issues, and who are over-focussed on the mistakes they made in the past that permitted the out of control situation to develop .... •What I think is truly harmful is anything that discourages ."DGG


 * NON-RESPONSE (ArbCom = Carcharoth )

>


 * DISCONNECT

>

REDUNDANT REPETITION FOR EMPHASIS  Carcharoth's diffs discourage me. This is truly harmful when it is perceived as discouraging by others. --Tenmei (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship
The topic needing resolution is something to do with organizing? or structural planning?

This is a draft effort to use graphics as a tool in crafting a non-verbose response to Carcharoth's diffs here and here.

Please help me improve this with constructive criticism.

I plan to post the following in an ArbCom thread. Can it be made clearer? shorter? better?

If you please, please help resolve this situation by making a thoughtful comment at active ArbCom thread.

Note: The is already posted in the thread.
 * Arbitrator views and discussion
 * Risker (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Carcharoth (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Carcharoth (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Carcharoth (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

GOOD &mdash; yes, of course "...it is not unreasonable for us to "Carcharoth
 * NO -- it is unreasonable to pose ill-defined hypotheticals. Unreasonable to expect anyone to formulate crisp analysis or "answers" given that parameters of prospective mentoring issues are non-specific.  The flexible role of mentors exists to address unforeseen problematic circumstances which can only happen as the future unfolds. Establishing tentative framework of organization and plan for mentoring task force is accomplished; but it was and continues to be a time sink in relation to primary mentoring objectives, e.g., addressing express WP:TLDR problems. --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * WRONG
 * "...there needs to be some, otherwise ."Carcharoth
 * NO -- No one can predict how this is going to work. The only thing to be done is to see how the teamwork relationships evolve across coming weeks and months.
 * NO -- this is already a time sink with no observable rewards/outcomes, no difference in non-contextualized speculations, no way to distinguish "right" or "wrong", and no apparent linkages with
 * •cohort of allegations in record
 * •principles adduced in record
 * •findings-of-fact adduced in record
 * •remedies adduced in record
 * •record of ArbCom uninvolved inaction. --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * DISCONNECT? or DISJUNCTION?
 * Further speculative planning is unproductive. Conventions of law of diminishing returns inform prudent decision to terminate pre-planning. The exercise is nothing other than a discouraging time sink. --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

"...please be patient and . I realise it, but if you wait just a little bit longer and let others speak" Carcharoth
 * NO -- Frustration? Frustration of purpose?
 * I have now waited for NINE MONTHS for responses to questions about what happened in the ArbCom case.
 * •Sept 09, waiting 3 months -- Carcharoth e-mail postpones questions with delay
 * •Dec 09, waiting 6 months -- complaint-driven ArbCom adopts to conclusory allegations without scrutiny or discussion, ArbCom requires delay until mentors can be located
 * •Mar 10, waiting 9 months -- ArbCom exacerbates time sink with delay
 * NO -- Frustration = Aggravation? Making things worse? And this helps to mitigate WP:TLDR in what way? --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "...then we may finally . We ."Carcharoth
 * NO -- the notion that ArbCom has anything to do with "setting something up" is an illustration of The Emperors New Clothes which entails adverse consequences of pointless delay.
 * NO -- collapse or failure has little or nothing to do with ArbCom except
 * •avoiding time sink of parsing theories and hypotheticals
 * •ensuring that volunteer mentors receive ArbCom's support and encouragement and thanks in addition to mine
 * •determining parameters for decision-making which leads to ending involuntary mentorship. --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Involuntary mentorship is defined as punitive.
 * •NINE MONTHS of punishment for what? teaches constructive lessons in what way? •THREE MONTHS blocked editing for what? expands comprehension or understanding in what manner? And this helps to mitigate WP:TLDR as predictable sequelae from what methods? Summarizing this record: Escalating alphabeticals, catchwords, catch phrases, etc. have overwhelmed coherent discussion with references to policy acronyms and loaded language. My seriatim responses were derided as WP:TLDR ... and delay muddied an already complicated array of facts, factoids and factors. --Tenmei (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

In theory, it is not unreasonable to ask hypothetical questions; but in practice, the attempt can easily devolve into a time sink. Illustrating the point with a timely issue: Is there a constructive value in examining failures attributable to ArbCom &mdash; serial incidents in which ArbCom snatched defeat from the jaws of victory? --Tenmei (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hypotheticals

2nd try
Please notice my revised "2nd try" message at User talk:PMDrive1061 &mdash; only 8 sentences + 2 quotes? It is shorter and thus better? It seems to me that I've not explained enough. The re-thinking rationale is a variant of less is more; but in this context of initiating a working relationship, I would have thought that less is simply less. In other words, less would seem to be too little? Like my "1st try" message, this is also puzzling but in a different way. --Tenmei (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)






 * Thank you. Yes, I plan to add nothing more to the currently open ArbCom thread. --Tenmei (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)