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/Inciden... 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.
Tony Sidaway (minorityreport@bluebottle.com) [050220 21:46]:
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/Inciden... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_SNL:2000-2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_24
I'd think that given the ambiguity, it would be unfair to penalise Everyking in this instance. However, I'd think it'd be a fair enough question, given I think we *meant* something like that. (This sort of thing is why AC rulings increasingly bristle with subclauses of "NO, AND NOT THAT EITHER."). You might want to write up a request on WP:RFAr for a clarifying vote.
- d.
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@bluebottle.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 10:46:00 -0000 (GMT) To: wikien-l@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/Inciden... #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@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder said:
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.
I've taken up David Gerard's suggestion (made here I think but also on [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration]]) to make a concise (oh well, I did my best) formal requestion on [[WP:RfAr]].