User talk:Gladys j cortez/Archive8

=On the blankness of my talk page= '''The recent changes to the culture of this site have led me to question whether I wish to be a part of it anymore. Sometimes it is possible to do the right thing in the wrongest possible way; having proven this point, and emboldened by ArbCom's "unbiased" motion, the admins involved in the mass-deletions continue to show unmitigated disdain for every editor who questions either their philosophy or their methods. In the Wikipedia I joined, this would not have been allowed to stand; however, obviously the site has changed since then. The question thus remains: do I wish to align myself with a site such as this has become? To be honest, I'm leaning toward "no"; however, since once I leave I will not be returning, I want to consider my decision before acting on it. My editing will most likely be sporadic at best until such time as I reach my final conclusion.

'''

GJC 07:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand how you feel. Wander by my talk page, or shoot me an e-mail.--Tznkai (talk) 07:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a good time to remind you of your own words from 2008. In a sense, isn't this a restatement of the foundation for much of what you've been doing as you invested time and thought in our Wikipedia project?


 * Do you remember writing this?
 * "I still think that verifiability is more important than consensus, and here's why. If you look at some of our most-contentious articles, you will find that on each side, there are people who are passionate (some seemingly to the point of unreasonability!) about their given topic. Each of those people knows other people who are equally passionate on that topic. Each of those people could conceivably recruit those others to come to WP and contribute their own passion to the "consensus". Eventually, it becomes a numbers game--who can win more people over to their side? Who can recruit the biggest, most verbally-skilled army? And thus, consensus can be manipulated." "Verifiability, on the other hand, as WP uses it, is a reasonably-static construct. Either there is, or there is not, substantive coverage in third-party reliable sources. It's like being pregnant; there's no such thing as "a little bit verifiable". A fact either IS covered verifiably, or it is NOT. (The questions then come up re: what constitutes a reliable source; this is verifiability's weak spot, actually, and represents one of the few ways it can be gamed, which is why we have the Reliable Sources Noticeboard--and at least part of why we have admins, IMHO. If we can't be counted on to enforce such a core policy, then what the heck are we doing holding this mop?)" "It's impossible to base a factual item such as an encyclopedia on a construct that owes so much to the mood of the moment--the current trends in science, politics, culture, and the attitudes and opinions which people bring to those areas. Consensus is like the sand, and will shift over time; verifiability, on the other hand, is the bedrock, and is the only solid place to build from."


 * This text is the underlying reason for my temerity in starting the "Mentorship" thread below. --Tenmei (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * NO!!!! Dude, I only just came back! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Not going to undo your admin action, but...
Someone wise once said: "Sometimes it is possible to do the right thing in the wrongest possible way". When you unblocked MickMacNee, did you check his talk page? The unblock request was on hold and being reviewed. Did you check with the blocking admin before you unblocked? Did you participate in any of the discussions? Did you even leave a note for the person you unblocked? Ultimately, MMN would have been unblocked, but they way you've done it is pretty crappy. AniMate  05:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I think Prodego's indefinite block followed by a "I'll think about it for a day or two" was game-playing at its worst. It left a very sour taste in my mouth to see such a thing, though I'll leave open the possibility that I'm simply reading too much into Prodego's actions. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Minnesota cuisine
Good news! I finally got my hands on photos of Cookie salad, Glorified rice, and Strawberry Delight. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship
The focus on unintended consequences would seem to be timely in view of the comments you've emphasized in bold font at the top of this page. I invite you to take a look at an old edit at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences? In the search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I cite this as a arguably useful context for discussing what I have in mind.

It is timely for me to wonder if you might consider joining others in a mentorship committee for me? Will you permit me to explain more?

When you became an administrator, reason informed my support here. I'd like to remind you of the context established by my question and your response at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gladys j cortez#Questions for the candidate. In October 2008, you construed my words as "a heck of a good question" here. For your convenience, I re-paste that excerpt here:

Optional questions from   Ase ' nine ' ''
 * 11. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?
 * A:Verifiability, without question. What good would come of an "encyclopedia" full of non-facts, developed by a group of people who may or may not be neutral about the subject? I'm all for consensus, understand, but--and I'm sure THIS example's already been beaten to death--for quite some time, there was a consensus that the Earth was the center of the universe, and all the planets and stars orbited us. Consensus alone does not make something a fact, and encyclopediae are in the business of facts.
 * Now that some time has passed since you answered this question, perhaps you might want to try again to express yourself in different words? Your response is concise, crisp, plain -- entirely above reproach. As I see it, Asenine crisply summarized the focus: "Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?" If you don't construe this question as deserving a more open-ended and revealing response, my question becomes "Why not?"


 * It seems reasonable to press for a more fully-developed comment and analysis. Your answer can be studied by a range of editors who are unlikely to note what you do or say in more narrowly-focused threads.  This becomes a unique opportunity to affect the evolving consensus on a key point which comes up in all sorts of circumstances.


 * Now that your elevation to the ranks of administrators is virtually assured, you have an opportunity to introduce a salutatory comment. In effect, this becomes an invitation to convert this question/answer exercise into something more constructive.


 * Asenine presented a lady or the tiger conundrum -- excellent, unavoidable, illuminating. The only correct answer is the one which illuminates the way in which the alternatives and consequences are evaluated.  The question goes to the heart of the reasoning processes which inform good judgment.  It also creates an opportunity to grapple with the most difficult challenge which the most highly-valued administrators face with grace and tact -- expressing themselves persuasively about core values.


 * Diplomacy is sometimes the art of avoiding saying anything which might plausibly cause a ripple of a problem to arise -- especially in a RfA thread. I see the merit in that cautious, restrained attitude; however, a more revealing answer to a difficult question could be seen as appropriate, seemly, and welcome.  What are you willing to make of this unique opportunity? --Tenmei (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Here goes (and I'm going to make this NOT be TL;DR):
 * I still think verifiability is more important than consensus, and here's why. If you look at some of our most-contentious articles, you will find that on each side, there are people who are passionate (some seemingly to the point of unreasonability!) about their given topic. Each of those people knows other people who are equally passionate on that topic. Each of those people could conceivably recruit those others to come to WP and contribute their own passion to the "consensus". Eventually, it becomes a numbers game--who can win more people over to their side? Who can recruit the biggest, most verbally-skilled army? And thus, consensus can be manipulated.
 * Verifiability, on the other hand, as WP uses it, is a reasonably-static construct. Either there is, or there is not, substantive coverage in third-party reliable sources. It's like being pregnant; there's no such thing as "a little bit verifiable". A fact either IS covered verifiably, or it is NOT. (The questions then come up re: what constitutes a reliable source; this is verifiability's weak spot, actually, and represents one of the few ways it can be gamed, which is why we have the Reliable Sources Noticeboard--and at least part of why we have admins, IMHO. If we can't be counted on to enforce such a core policy, then what the heck are we doing holding this mop?)
 * It's impossible to base a factual item such as an encyclopedia on a construct that owes so much to the mood of the moment--the current trends in science, politics, culture, and the attitudes and opinions which people bring to those areas. Consensus is like the sand, and will shift over time; verifiability, on the other hand, is the bedrock, and is the only solid place to build from.

I reach out today, in part, because of the "teachable moment" which failed to develop here and here for reasons beyond our ability to foresee here. In the months since I created an article about the Teachable moment, the topic has taken on an unanticipated personal relevance.

I have also sent you an e-mail. Please contact me by e-mail or on my talk page --Tenmei (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ping : I understand your uncertainty. Please consider contacting me by e-mail. I hope for an opportunity to find a way to work with you in a mentorship group, at least during the initial start-up phase. --Tenmei (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this something you need to know? Your name not is included in a new posting at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks Noticeboard#Discussion/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Tang Dynasty? As for what happens next, we'll see? Why can't I continue to wish for you to be part of this select group? Arguably, I'm asking for less than you imagine in the short term.
 * ArbCom clerks' noticeboard

Yes -- I do understand what "no" means; and yet, an undeterred sense of hope remains optimistic, open-ended, questioning. --Tenmei (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

How mentoring will work?
Roger Davies seeks more information from the mentors about how mentoring will work. Perhaps this evidence of thinking-through-the-problem will help persuade you to re-think your reluctance to participate in my mentors group?

I hope these words will help "prime" the pump. I believe that what can be done in pre-planning has been accomplished. We will be figuring it out together as the future unfolds. A restatement is straightforward:
 * An initial editing strategy based on a theory of wiki-pacifism was suggested by the userpage of Leujohn in Hong Kong.
 * Fasten in Germany suggested that I tentatively adopt pacifist tactics as an experiment derived from salutary premises which I posted at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unanticipated Consequences, especially the words of a famous German:
 * We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. &mdash; Albert Einstein

In the absence of any better alternative, I agreed; however, a willingness to experiment with a novel tactic represents only a superficial change. This is useful as an exploratory gambit, but not transformative. I am not persuaded that pacifist action is workable even in this experimental approach, but we'll see.

The Latin axiom qui tacet consentire videtur is mirrored in WP:Silence + WP:Consensus. In our wiki-context, I would like to find a way to construe pacifist non-confrontation ≠ WP:Silence. In resolving these seeming contradictions, the mentors' points-of-view are essential. Together we will discover otherwise unrecognized alternatives.

In the context of this specific issue, Xavexgoem has agreed to be a non-public mentor. "Finding of facts" in the decision at Tang Dynasty encompassed User talk:Xavexgoem/archive5#Seeking help in presenting thoughts clearly. Xavexgoem's experience in mediation will help remedy an arguable deficit in the composition of our small group. Core policies are the tools at hand; and Xavexgoem agreed to help connect the dots in hopes that it could benefit more than me.

Does this help you make better guesses about how mentorship will work? If you continue to be disinterested in a role in the cohort of ArbCom-approved "public mentors," perhaps you might be willing or able to be a non-public mentor/advisor dealing with specific or episodic issues only? --Tenmei (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ping
I have sent you an e-mail. ArbCom wants comments -- prospective mentors? --Tenmei (talk) 05:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship
GJC -- At best, this enquiry will serve as a tipping point which causes you to re-visit your thinking about leaving Wikipedia.

At worst, you will never read this because your decision-making is already concluded; and this becomes the sound of one hand clapping.

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. What I construe as Carcharoth's main points are.

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

If you please, I hope you will 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? Can you suggest a better way to solicit your help in a specific context? --Tenmei (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hypotheticals

A random passerby says...
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ChildofMidnight#Oy. This] was fun, thanks for posting it! Mackan79 (talk) 07:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Aha, yes -- arguably this was fun, but it was also serious. The American idioms are dense, difficult to parse, relentless -- but wasn't that the point of a carefully crafted text in which the medium is the message?  For my part, I'm very glad that Mackan79 underscored the gravamen by linking it here.  Otherwise, I would have been likely to miss it.


 * Aan implicit aspect of GJC's nuanced analysis was at once novel, insightful, gratifying, refreshing and timely:


 * IMHO – WP:TLDR ≥ the house that FACT built = Academic credibility


 * Too Long; didn't read – As explained at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Editors reminded:
 * "Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary."


 * This Is the House That Jack Built – As explained at User talk:Child of Midnight#Oy:
 * "... Here is a fact. Here is where it says this is a fact. Here is where it clarifies that the guy who says this is a fact is not a crank. This is the dog that chased the cat that worried the rat that ate the corn that lay in the house that Fact built ...." -- User:Gladys j cortez a/k/a GJC  21:58, 13 February 2010 (diff)


 * This text becomes another of the underlying reasons for my persisting efforts to invite GJC's interest in the plausibly off-putting "Mentorship" thread above. --Tenmei (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Does Plaxico have a brother who writes sonnets, I wonder?
Best edit summary ever. PhGustaf (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to give you barnstar for that message, but not sure which one though: the Socratic one, the one for good humor, or the one for random acts of kindness. Feel free to choose. PR has indeed departed from this project by his won Clockwork Orange-like actions. That's life, and it is somewhat sad, but the total amount of time wasted by others on him with little return is probably even more so. Pcap ping  02:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC/User on PCPP
Hello. Please be aware that I have opened an RfC about the conduct of .--Asdfg12345 01:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)