User talk:Leujohn

In the context of this specific issue,

Does this help you make better guesses about how mentorship will work? --

A task force is established to work on a single defined task or activity. Drawing lessons from the photo at the right: If wiki-"mentoring" is at all like teaching Afghan women to raise bees and chickens, delay produces neither honey nor eggs.

A "mentoring task Force" (MTF) for me is a more topical or timely name than "mentorship committee." The word "task" emphasises our short- and long-term objectives; and the identified volunteers have been waiting too long to begin addressing specific tasks-at-hand.

The most widely publicized examples of on-going mentoring are linked with the phrase "task force." For example, NATO's Operational Mentor and Liaison Teams (OMLTs) are an important part of its contribution towards stabilizing Afghanistan. Australia's military programme in Afghanistan has been re-named Mentoring Task Force (MTF) concurrent with deployments in 2010. The Canadian mentoring programme in Afghanistan appears controversial precisely because of allegations that the Harper governent is waiting too long to get started — see Matthew Fisher, "Canada may have painted itself into corner in Afghanistan," The Gazette (Montreal). March 12, 2010.

A Google search for the phrase "mentoring task force" produces a range non-military hits, including an American Anthropological Association report in 2009 which ends with the words "Don't Drop the ball."

I do recognize that this is a pivotal time for ArbCom as Wikipedia's future development unfolds; nevertheless, my role requires me to reiterate: "Don't drop the ball."

Editing advice

Leujohn -- You may not know that PMDrive1061 agreed to be a non-public mentor.

With regret, I have to report that today's attempt to reach out for help was unclear:

A. I intended to ask for comments here about the use of formatting as a device (a) to focus my comments and (b) to limit the number of words.

B. Also, I wanted to invite PMDrive1061 to consider posting a comment at the active ArbCom thread.

Instead, my words were construed as puzzling. I tried to restate my purpose and questions here.

Do you have the time to take a look at this? Can you offer suggestions about what I might have done differently? Can you propose plausible modifications in the formatting or in the wording?

Thank you for your helpful posting here --

Please notice my revised "2nd try" message at

talk) 16:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for your sensible contributions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. Your patience helps me to be patient too.

This is not developing in ways which seem reasonable; but there it is -- an odd mystery. I hope that frustration will not cause you to withdraw. --

talk) 00:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I contacted each ArbCom member who commented on the Tang Dynasty "clarification" thread -- Smith, Coren, Davies, Risker, Carcharoth, SirFozzie, Hersfold; and in addition, I reached out to two others who commented on another thread on the same page -- Newyorkbrad, Shell. This modest effort engendered three vague, unhelpful responses:

1. Thanks for the note. We are close to deciding what to do here, so a little bit more patience and thanks for being so patient so far as this has indeed taken some time. Carcharoth (talk) 04:55, 27 April 2010
2. This is being discussed. I think I'm going to stand where I am on this, but we will see how others think. SirFozzie (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2010
3. Just in case you hadn't noticed, I haven't actually commented on your request at all. Your comments were very confusing themselves and you seem to have set up a confusing mentorship system with a large number private and public mentors. In my opinion, this is not going to go well, but as I was not around for the original case, I am deferring to the judgement of Arbiters who were there for the case and can hopefully understand a bit better what you are proposing. Shell ^babelfish 00:17, 27 April 2010

I construe Shell's comment as a suggestion that I contact each ArbCom member who participated directly in Tang Dynasty. I will give this some thought.

In each "ping", I explicitly invite ArbCom to explain to you and the other identified "mentors." For redundant clarity, my words were these: "please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me." Was it necessary to underline these words?

ArbCom's core error is two-fold: (a) failure to answer direct questions from me; and (b) failure to communicate with you.

talk) 15:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved by motion at

1)

talk · contribs), McDoobAU93 (talk · contribs

)). The period of mentorship will last six months from the date on which this motion passes, although it may be extended with the agreement of Tenmei and one or more mentors. Tenmei is strongly encouraged to seek advice and guidance from his mentors regularly. Should they deem it necessary, Tenmei's mentors may return to the Arbitration Committee for clarification of any editing restrictions or questions with respect to the terms of mentorship. Editors who come into conflict with Tenmei are advised to contact the mentor(s) either publicly or via email.

2) Tenmei is reminded of the remedies from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty that apply to him. Specifically:

• Tenmei is topic-banned from
  Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty
  for a period of six months. He is permitted to comment on the talkpage, so long as he does so in a civil fashion. (The six-month period will commence from the date on which this motion passes.)
• Tenmei is instructed not to interact with or comment with regard to Teeninvestor or Caspian blue on any page of Wikipedia, except in the course of legitimate dispute resolution initiated by others.

For the Arbitration Committee,

• Discuss this

Thank you for sticking with me during this slow process. --

talk) 00:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Your passive oversight may be needed at Talk:Shinto shrine#Revert. I am posting an alert on the talk pages of the others in the mentorship group; however, I anticipate that none of you will need to intervene.

If something does develop, I agreed in months ago to be guided by Leujohn's active mentoring lead.

The contributions history here + an old dispute thread at Talk:Iwashimizu Hachiman-gū#Top three shrines cause me to guess that this is precisely the kind of problem which calls for a heads-up. For more background, see also here

In response to an early-2009 dispute, I created Hakozaki Shrine, Usa Shrine and Modern system of ranked Shinto Shrines. The research which went into developing these articles informs my reaction to an otherwise trivial edit here. The small change suggests that this may have something to do with pre-1947 State Shinto ranking.

From 1871 to 1947, the Kanpei-sha (官幣社) identified a hierarchy of government-supported shrines most closely associated with the Imperial family. Included in the highest ranks were these three:

• Usa Shrine, Usa, Ōita —Kanpei-taisha (官幣大社)
• Iwashimizu Shrine,
  Yawata, Kyoto
  — Kanpei-taisha, 3rd among the most highly ranked Imperial shrines
• Hakozaki Shrine,
  Fukuoka
  — Kanpei-taisha

Before 1947, the mid-range of ranked, nationally significant shrines or Kokuhei Chūsha (国幣中社) included

Maybe nothing will come of this, but I will invite

Thank you for your investment of time and concern. --

I have added a Outside view by Tenmei at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor. I would very much appreciate your impression, especially

(a) if you can suggest a way to improve the clarity of the writing and/or

(b) if you construe any part of the diff as insufficiently moderate and forward-looking.

As you will guess, I invested quite a bit of time in drafting this; and I want to encourage you to contact me by e-mail with any constructive comments and criticism. --