[WikiEN-l] Clarification of ArbCom rulings (was Everyking again)

Sun Feb 20 13:37:39 UTC 2005

We try to write rulings which are tailored to the situation which is
presented to us, in this case, a morbid fascination with Ashlee Simpson
exhibited by an otherwise good editor. In our attempt to fashion a remedy
which addressed the problem area, while preserving Everyking's freedom to
edit we have left a loophole. Everyking made a choice to exploit that
loophole when he ought to know we have had enough. Obviously the decision
can be tightened up if needed. This is very similar to the Hershelkrustofsky
case where there was a problem with inserting of Lyndon LaRouche related
material into articles only slightly related to the topic. This was
eventually resolved with a more extensive ban.

The Arbitration Committee could create its own notice board and may, but is
best contacted now by either posting on the individual arbitrators' talk
pages or by a note on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Leaving a note on
the finished arbitration case can be missed.

Fred

> From: "Tony Sidaway" <minorityreport at bluebottle.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 10:46:00 -0000 (GMT)
> To: <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Clarification of ArbCom rulings (was Everyking again)
> 
> I think the recent incidents involving Everyking's reverts on
> [[History_of_SNL:2000-2010]] and [[October 24]] suggest that we need a
> mechanism whereby we can ask ArbCom to clarify its rulings.  There is
> debate on this on
> [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Everyking_Reverting_Again]
> ],
> but as far as I can see no current member of ArbCom has commented yet.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents
> #Everyking_Reverting_Again
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_SNL:2000-2010
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_24
> 
> Everyking and Jquk are right to say that the articles in question are not
> directly related to Ashlee Simpson, but as the passages he is reverting
> are those that pertain directly to Ashlee Simpson (some kind of
> embarrassing incident on an American TV program involving a backing
> track), it appears to me that Luigi30, Carnildo, Calton, Rhobite, silsor,
> RickK have a point.
> I think that, as Calton has suggested, the point needs clarification, but
> I know of no specific forum where this kind of request, requiring a
> response from ArbCom, would be appropriate.
> Might I suggest that a page be created where ArbCom can be petitioned for
> clarification by two or more users in dispute over an ArbCom ruling
> pertaining directly to one of them?  They would have to demonstrate a
> substantive ambiguity in interpretation that requires clarification.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l