| Revision as of 18:46, 21 October 2008 editXasha (talk | contribs)2,048 edits →Clarification needed: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:25, 21 October 2008 edit undoArcticocean (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Extended confirmed users46,227 edits →Clarification needed: Interim reply.Next edit → | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
| Could you provide an ad-hoc definition of Eastern European topics? (i.e. are articles related to countries like the Czech Republic, the Caucasian countries, Kazakhstan or Russian Far East included?) Also I suppose I am still allowed on EE talk pages. Cause, depending on your definition, I may have to limit my work to these wpspaces (sincerely I don't think I can improve topics related to regions like Africa or the Arab World, because I have little knowledge about such topics outside standard school curriculum and Discovery-channelesque documentaries)] (]) 18:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC) | Could you provide an ad-hoc definition of Eastern European topics? (i.e. are articles related to countries like the Czech Republic, the Caucasian countries, Kazakhstan or Russian Far East included?) Also I suppose I am still allowed on EE talk pages. Cause, depending on your definition, I may have to limit my work to these wpspaces (sincerely I don't think I can improve topics related to regions like Africa or the Arab World, because I have little knowledge about such topics outside standard school curriculum and Discovery-channelesque documentaries)] (]) 18:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :{{takeNote}} Reply forthcoming. Signing now to stave off automatic bot archiving. ] 22:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:25, 21 October 2008
Re: ArbCom clerk-like edits
I've indirectly complied with the request as so far as not making edits to the clerk noticeboard as I appreciate (despite my own reservations) that it may make things confusing. Similarly, on proposed decision and final case pages in line with the rules and exceptions. Evidently though, I need to draw a picture for each of the clerks individually seeing the message I've given in return is simply not sinking in. The several arbitrators that I contacted on the matter have directly stated that edits like are not a problem for a non-clerk (and found them helpful), and evidently, the clerks think they have authority to say otherwise - they do not. Additionally, suddenly suggesting that 2 templates that have been edited by non-clerks for many months is now off limits is a problem in itself because I cannot appreciate the clerking body targeting my edits.
The clerks exist for the Committee whom exists for the community - not any other way. The community expects disputes to be dealt with as quickly and effectively as possible, and any member of the community has the right to push disputes towards achieving that objective and fix obvious discrepancies (like typos and fmting errors on a proposed decision page, as well as those trivial edits I made to the templates). This is particularly so when dispute resolution is falling short of that objective, even in the final stage of arbitration. The clerking body do not have the authority to deprive any editor of that legitimate right, or to prevent them from exercising it (whether it is on the odd occasion, or whether it is on a more regular basis). The edits you've cited are not within (or confined to) traditional clerking duties.
For the clerks to be brought to arbitration over ownership/authority issues, or bringing a non-clerk to arbitration because the clerks want to go on a power trip - and I will be utterly blunt - is pathetic. But it seems from the increased aggressiveness in these messages that this is going to become the case. Whether the result from this is something that I've already suggested to that arbitrator of what will become of my future edits in total, or whether it's in the clerks being told that they do not own these pages, the net result, regardless of what is said, will not change: turning the so-called image of the clerking body into something that is more than controversial, borderline embarassing. Please don't, as I think it will be very sad if it comes to that.
If you still wish to assert authority over my edits relating to ArbCom, then I'm likely to escalate this elsewhere (if not already) - however, you are of course welcome to do so yourself too.
Unimpressed,
Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for a response on this matter. Allow me a day or two to respond to this. In the meanwhile, do rest assured that I am not attempting to "cut you out," in anyway, of contributing to the areas in question simply because they are traditionally the purview of the clerks—that would be bureaucratic, elitist, and against the Wiki Way.
- And: a threat of an arbitration case against the clerks is plainly unhelpful. I am not going on a power trip here; nor are any of the other clerks that have tried to get this message across. I would have thought that my advice and willingness to assist you over IRC and other off-Wiki forums, Ncm, would have dispelled any such suspicion?
- Anthøny (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Scratch the note of a forthcoming further response: this thread seems to have been superseded by the thread you opened at WT:RFAR. Anthøny (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Clarification needed
Could you provide an ad-hoc definition of Eastern European topics? (i.e. are articles related to countries like the Czech Republic, the Caucasian countries, Kazakhstan or Russian Far East included?) Also I suppose I am still allowed on EE talk pages. Cause, depending on your definition, I may have to limit my work to these wpspaces (sincerely I don't think I can improve topics related to regions like Africa or the Arab World, because I have little knowledge about such topics outside standard school curriculum and Discovery-channelesque documentaries)Xasha (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: Reply forthcoming. Signing now to stave off automatic bot archiving. AGK 22:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
