User talk:Enkyo2/Subpage Mentorship-A

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.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[edit]

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 text highlighted in beige is already posted in the thread.

Response to CarcharothRaising the bar

The re-statements in reply to Steve Smith + Coren + Roger Davies + Risker are comprehensive and clear. Carcharoth's words are like raising the bar, which here takes the form of "feature creep" as objectives are redefined. According to the Wikipedia article about the phrase "moving the goalpost":

  • The term is often used in business to imply bad faith on the part of those setting goals for others to meet, by arbitrarily making additional demands just as the initial ones are about to be met.
  • This form of abuse tend to occur when there are unstated assumptions that are obvious to one party but not to another.

At best, Carcharoth's reasoning illustrates a perfect solution fallacy which is inapposite in this unique case.

In a context ArbCom has created, it is seemly to adopt the words of DGG as my own. Having been identified as a "suitable mentor", DGG's words resist being devalued with WP:TLDR.

I adopt DGG's words as if they were my own:

A. Tenmei asserts, "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." [Compare diff.]
B. Tenmei asserts, "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, for understandable writing, for balance in coverage between and among articles, for avoiding promotionalism of people's individual viewpoints, and, more especially, the need to update every article in Wikipedia in a regular and reliable manner." [Compare diff.]
C. Tenmei asserts, "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. It's right that our founder and the other long-term Wikipedians who started a project that that had inadequate standards should regret they did not insist on sourcing from the beginning--but their reaction is typical of those who try by harshness to make up for the sins of their childhood. What I think is truly harmful is anything that discourages ...." [Compare diff.]

Carcharoth's diff discourages me.

This is truly harmful when it is perceived as discouraging by others. --Tenmei (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Time sink -- Carcharoth, this term is apt. The work completed thus far has been onerous and needlessly isolating.

Your newly contrived insistence on hypothetical issues is divorced from anything to do with Wikipedia:Mentorship or Mentorship. This illustrates a story of ArbCom's self-created problems; and it becomes unseemly to pass the buck.

Some questions are unanswerable. No salutary purpose is served by further theorizing and indecision.

Bottom line. I need to return to editing. No less important, volunteer mentors need your support and encouragement and thanks along with mine. --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.
FallacyWP:AGF = DictumSyllogism = 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 — 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.

Axioms, work in progress[edit]

The genesis of Wikipedia: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[edit]

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)


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.

Arbitrator views and discussion -- Carcharoth's diffs

Note: The text highlighted in beige is already posted in the thread.

Arbitrator views and discussion
  • I note the comments of a few of the editors approached to act as mentors. I would like to know (a) how you will address differences amongst yourselves (a situation we have encountered in other mentoring situations); (b) what range of actions you are willing to undertake as individuals and as a group; (c) how the "group" will work when Tenmei is also receiving private advice from individuals not specifically included in the group of mentors. In answer to the question above, Tenmei's six-month topic ban on the subject of Tang Dynasty begins once the mentorship is approved. Risker (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • This can't move forward until Risker's questions above are answered. Could a clerk please notify the editors who need to comment here. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Tenmei, if you want DGG to comment here, by all means invite him to do so. As for your comments about "raising the bar", it is not unreasonable for us to ask the possible mentors to lay out here what they see as their role in all this. I count, so far, Doc James and Kraftlos (of those you list) and in addition to this, Nihonjoe and Coppertwig. The layout at User talk:Tenmei/Sub-page Alerts is impressive, but there needs to be some indication of how this will work, otherwise this risks becoming a time sink if it goes wrong. Carcharoth (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Tenmei, I'm supportive of you resuming editing with mentors, but please be patient and wait for other arbitrators and those willing to mentor you to respond here. I realise it must be frustrating for you, but if you wait just a little bit longer and let others speak, then we may finally get something workable set up here. We want this to work, not collapse because it was not set up properly. Carcharoth (talk) 03:27, 15 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 — serial incidents in which ArbCom snatched defeat from the jaws of victory? --Tenmei (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

2nd try[edit]

Please notice my revised "2nd try" message at User talk:PMDrive1061#Mentorship — 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)

  • "...reader will not have memorized or internalized all those concepts, but will remember only a brief summary."
  • "...Saying "NO" comes across as aggressive: avoid capital letters or bold text etc. for that reason, and choose different words e.g. "I disagree", which comes across as softer.
Thank you. Yes, I plan to add nothing more to the currently open ArbCom thread. --Tenmei (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)