Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by L235 (talk | contribs) at 23:23, 7 May 2022 (→‎Motion: Mythdon restriction lifted: enact). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles Motion (orig. case) 12 April 2022
Clarification request: Ryulong Motion (orig. case) 11 April 2022

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

  • Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127

This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles

Clarification request archived. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 12:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Initiated by Shrike at 17:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Shrike

This regarding following from WP:PIA 

Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc

Recently IP added a statement in ARBPIA thread at WP:AE [1] I have removed as it not article talk page but as its one of the "internal project discussions" the post was restored by Bishonen[2] with edit summary "IPs don't get to *file* requests, but are welcome to comment. Please see the big pink template at the top of the page" I ask to clarify does IP comments are allowed in ARBPIA WP:AE/WP:ANI/WP:AN threads if yes wording should be changing accordingly if no then it should be clarified at WP:AE page Note:I have discussed the matter with the Admin but we didn't came to agreement User_talk:Bishonen#You_restore_at_WP:AE

@Worm That Turned: The rule was made to block socking, IPs and new users have nothing to do there, except if case is filed against them, so such users that want to comment there are probably returning users the shouldn't comment for example the IP first edits is some internal wiki proposal that is a low chance that not experienced user will come there [3],[4] anyhow, in the end, I want some consistency right now comment by non-ECP user was removed[5] while comment by IP was restored [6] --Shrike (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I totally agree with Wugapodes also I doesn't put any additional strain on AE admins as with articles the removing of such comments is usually done by regular users Shrike (talk) 06:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bishonen But that what happens in article space almost every time non-ecp user make edit, user from other camp are removing it citing WP:ARBPIA. That the usual practice. Shrike (talk) 08:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49 What about ANI/AN,for example at RSN in various RFCs the users are doing the clerking and removing non-ECP comments and I think personally its the best way per WP:NOTBURO if there are some dispute that can be always brought to uninvolved admin or at WP:AE Shrike (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen

Please see [7]. Bishonen | tålk 17:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Adding: Arbcom "owns" AE but traditionally takes little interest in it. Not sure if anybody is interested in a trip down memory lane, but it was in fact me that agitated for disallowing non-autoconfirmed users from posting requests at AE, back in 2015, and me that added the wording about it to the pink template.[8] You can see me pushing for it and nearly giving up in the face of lack of Arbcom interest, here, but in the end, they allowed it. Before 2015, it had been quite a problem, with disruptive requests repeatedly opened by socks and dynamic IPs, which wasted some admin time and also — a much bigger problem — forced the unfortunate targets of these usually bad-faith reports to repeatedly defend themselves. That was my focus at the time, and it seemed easier to get Arbcom to allow the smaller restriction, only against opening reports, while still welcoming everybody to post. If the current committee (which seems more interested! good!) wants to enlarge the restriction, I've no objection. But for myself, I agree with Worm's and Zero's comments that AE admins should have discretion here, since they run AE anyway.
  • As for Shrike's removal, it seems a bad idea to me that an editor who has already posted an opposite viewpoint,[9][10][11][12] and has skin in the game, should remove an IP post (twice, yet). Even if it's the right action, it's the wrong user. If this ends with IPs and noobs being generally disallowed, perhaps something about involved users leaving them alone should still be part of it. Bishonen | tålk 08:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Zero

I think that the ARBPIA restrictions clearly say that an IP should not post at AE, and the apparent contradiction at the head of that page is only because it wasn't updated when the ARBPIA restriction was brought in.

However, unlike most noticeboards, AE is tightly controlled by the admins who adjudicate cases and it makes sense to allow them some discretion. So it would go like this: IP posts, someone complains, admins choose to delete the IP's post or allow it to stay. Zerotalk 13:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: You make good points. Maybe it can be written that admins can allow non-ecs to contribute at their discretion, but that explicit permission is needed. Zerotalk 14:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

Isn't the entire purpose of the Edit Confirmed thing to not have to deal with socks and new users in the topic area? If you have an opinion on an AE situation, you should really already be EC, otherwise how are you involved in the topic area? The situations where someone who is not EC will have a reason to take someone to AE over IP stuff is vanishingly small, and if someone's behavior towards an IP non-disruptively making suggestions at an article talk page is disruptive enough to need AE, then I'm pretty sure that someone will bring the case here.

Here are the edits that were removed, and restored recently: [13] Sectarian blame game bullshit, great. And then [14] Oh good, a bunch of sophistry.
This is exactly the reason that EC exists, to stop this kind of non-constructive commentary from editors with essentially no on-wiki identity. There are plenty of established editors in the topic area that can take part and argue about it without allowing anonymous people who can't even edit the articles target other editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atsme

While I don't edit in this topic area, I am familiar with other aspects including IP editors who are emboldened by anonymity. I appreciate what Bishonen made happen relative to IPs, but it doesn't completely eliminate an IP from having a voice...and a very powerful one if they can get an admin to file a case for them as we've experienced in the recent past. I doubt an IP could acquire such help if their position didn't align with WP's systemic biases or pose a threat to an ally; therefore, without closer scrutiny and the right kind of restrictions, we are leaving the door open to WP:POV creep, inadvertent or otherwise, and that's not much of a remedy. We typically welcome IP editing, especially wikignoming and other drive-by edits that improve articles, but we cannot ignore the vast majority of problems associated with IP SPAs, socks and/or meatpuppets. AGF looks great on paper but in practice maybe not so much. In the past, I have suggested some form of admin rotation in controversial topic areas so the same few admins aren't forced to carry all the weight in controversial topic areas, especially those areas subject to DS/AE, but what benefits do we derive by giving random IPs the same access and level of trust to comment in important venues that could negatively affect veteran editors? While we can do our best to AGF, in reality, trust is earned, not deserved. Atsme 💬 📧 15:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AE regular, Dennis Brown

I've become quite the regular at AE, although more of a sense of duty, rather than desire, and I've always operated under the assumption that IPs can not file. In fact, I've seen people file on behalf of an IP, which is ok in my book, as they take responsibility for it not being trivial. But at the same time, I've always thought IPs could comment along with the other editors, and over the years, I've found that IPs are more or less as on topic as registered users. Probably less problems, actually, as only the most experienced IPs can find the place. If I'm wrong, I will adapt, but honestly, I don't have any problem with IPs commenting in the "other" section, as long as they are not initiating cases. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

For the rest of the places where "formal discussions" may be said to take place, I agree that non-ecps should not participate. At AE, where there is less of a free form discussion and a stricter process, then the admins there should be able to decide that. Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Palestine-Israel articles: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Palestine-Israel articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I don't claim to be an expert on PIA remedies. However, my reading of the extended confirmed restriction which includes PIA says IPs cannot comment at AE. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions. (emphasis added) AE is by my reading a noticeboard and regardless feels like an internal project discussion. So while IPs can normally participate at AE, I think ECP prevents that in the case of remedies, including PIA, which have ECR. But I look forward to seeing what other arbs say. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with barkeep49's interpretation. But if this causes problems for AE I'm open to some kind of change. The status quo is that AE is an internal project discussion for ECR proposes. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Barkeep49 and L235. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've got a problem here though - because Bishonen is also right that the big template at the top of the AE page is pretty clear that ALL users can comment. It's even juxtaposed with a statement that IP editors cannot file. In other words, we've got two conflicting guidelines. It's tempting to accept ECR, because that was more recently put in place, but I fall on the other side, that we should focus on AE. I don't want to make the process even more onerous for the admins who take the time to actually work in that area - they already have enough rules to remember, but saying they should monitor the topic that IPs are commenting on for a minor note about whether they can comment seems over the top. Secondly AE is an enforcement board, and therefore one of the areas that we sometimes historically except restrictions, per WP:BANEX, I'd like to push that way as a general principle. Finally, there is the wiki philosophy of doing the right thing, thinking about the outcomes, thinking about levels of disruption, thinking about net benefit - I trust our admins to monitor the board and will back them up on what they do, I'd rather they weren't hampered by the rules, when trying to do the right thing. WormTT(talk) 09:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zero0000's workflow makes sense to me. @Shrike I understand the purpose behind it, but blanket bans and removal without consideration doesn't sit well with me. WormTT(talk) 13:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree the wording at AE should be correct, no matter what we decide here. That said, extended confirmed areas, including this one, have often been plagued with new editors who are disruptive at AE, including filing retaliatory/battleground reports. ArbComs of days gone past did not land on the noticeboard wording by accident. I'm pretty reluctant to backtrack on that in topic areas admins have repeatedly told us are the hardest to patrol and which many will not work in. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's what the AE admins want, I'm all for it. I'd like to defer to their discretion as a whole. WormTT(talk) 14:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the comments on this topic. I believe I now sit at the same point as Wugapodes' final paragraph - that we should update the text as he suggests and that admins should have the discretion to allow IP and non-EC comments where helpful. So, in a similar situation to this - Shrike could remove the comment, Bishonen could review and restore if she felt it was helpful. And we can all go back to getting on with other things. WormTT(talk) 08:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to take a slightly tangential stance and say that AE should not be open to all users; AE should be limited to those with an account. In addition, I think the EC restrictions should apply to AE reports in that area. My thinking is that AE is an internal project discussion where we want a high signal-to-noise ratio and robust record keeping.
    IPs will fall into two camps: newbies and drifters. Newbies should not be commenting at AE for the same reason we don't let them comment in EC areas. Not only are they often socks, the policy knowledge required to participate helpfully is usually beyond them; they wind up being more noise than signal and can quickly cross the line into disruptive. The other type of IP that would comment at AE are what I'm going to call "drifters"; long term editors who, for whatever reason, do not want to create an account and periodically "drift" from IP to IP without an obvious meatball:SerialIdentity. There's nothing wrong with this, and many of these editors are helpful in various parts of the encyclopedia, but the benefit of inviting them to comment at AE is low. It opens us up to all the problems of newbies and socks (noise) for the occasional helpful comment (signal). The nature of IP-based editors is that they lack a robust meatball:AuditTrail, and that makes it hard to monitor who is using AE and for what ends. There is also the community aspect: drifters choose not to register an account and join our community, and while that's fine, community administration should be left to the community (see meatball:RewardReputation). So while there is some benefit to allowing IP drifters to comment, the highly administrative, procedural, and controversial nature of AE makes IP editing in general a net negative.
    Now, with all that said, I think it makes it easier to understand why I think EC restrictions should apply at AE: there are only newbies with none of the benefits of IP drifters. The reason we would not want newbie IPs commenting at AE is the same reason we don't want newbie accounts editing PIA articles or discussions. They lower the signal-to-noise ratio when genuinely new and are usually socks when they are policy-adept. For the few clean starts or IPs-turned-account, they will be able to participate when they have a sufficient reputation (i.e. 30/500) which I think is a feature not a bug.
    So, all together, I would suggest the following text: All registered users are welcome to comment on requests not covered by extended confirmation requirements. I'll also not that despite the above, I think admin should have discretion to allow IP and non-EC comments where helpful. In the (presumably rare) instances where an IP is being reported, then obviously their response would be sought. If an IP drifter is party to a dispute then an admin could ask them for a comment. In general though, I think the bulk of AE commentary should be parties and sysops, and (non-party) IPs and non-EC editors to me seems to strike the right signal-to-noise balance. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Bish that Shrike was the wrong person to clerk this at AE. Uninvolved administrators are already authorized to clerk that noticeboard and assuming current consensus holds, would continue to be authorized to do so around IP moving forward. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shrike AE is not, by design, like any other noticeboard. The rules are different and so what it means to not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles (to quote actual NOTBURO language) is different also. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some agreement among the arbs commenting that was should update the AE language but I'm seeing some disagreement about whether we should update it to reflect that IPs will be unable to comment in some situations or whether we should update it to note that uninvolved administrators have discretion. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm in favor of leaving it to the discretion of uninvolved admins. --BDD (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the issues we've had with socks, including some that have been used to harrass other editors, in the topic areas under ECR and that AE has been one place that has been a source of conflict, I'm in favor of saying ECR applies to AE also. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a practical point that hasn't been publicly discussed where there are certain specific editors we do not want participating in the area (including AE), and ECR helps to remove incentive for those editors. I am inclined the same way as Barkeep, and to change the AE text accordingly to account for ECR topic areas. All users are welcome to comment on requests. to All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate ECR. or some such is closer to what I would recommend. Explicitly, I think this should not be at the discretion of uninvolved administrators. --Izno (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Palestine-Israel articles

Extended-confirmed restrictions apply to internal project discussions, and non-extended confirmed editors may not participate at Arbitration Enforcement when the discussion involves topics covered by an extended-confirmed restriction. To clarify this, the text of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header is modified by replacing All users are welcome to comment on requests. with All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction).

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
  1. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Arbitrator comments
  • While I support the ideas involved here, I don't like setting a precedent that it takes an ArbCom motion to change the AE header. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Barkeep49: I am not too worried about that. AE admins: feel free to keep updating that header like normal. This motion is just making a one-time change in accordance with the clarification in the first sentence of the motion. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm fine just updating the AE header if that's where we're all at. That hadn't happened yet so I assumed we were waiting on some kind of motion before doing so. Another option which doesn't require outright passing a motion to modify the AE header is to clarify the section of WP:ECR by modifying the text of A1 to read Internal project discussions include[...]noticeboard discussions (including arbitration enforcement). — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would change the inserted part to except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). Listing one restriction like ECR seems to imply that no other restrictions are in effect, whereas in fact if you are e.g. topic banned you can't comment unless an exemption applies. Have also copyedited the motion slightly. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy with the spirit of the motion, but I share Barkeep49's concern about setting a precedent that may come back to bite us in the ass in the future. Are there any objections to one of us just going and making this edit? Maxim(talk) 02:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the lack of objection from other arbs (which in this instance I take as silent consent) and some sense that we don't want to start handling the AE header by motion, I have gone ahead and made the edit Cabayi proposed above as an individual administrator. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Extended-confirmed restriction (draft)

Draft 1

The "Extended confirmed restriction" section of the Arbitration Committee's procedures (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Extended confirmed restriction) are amended by appending at the end the following list item:

  • E. Uninvolved administrators may in specific cases grant an exception to allow a non-extended-confirmed editor to participate in a specific internal project discussion.
  • OR: E. Uninvolved administrators are permitted to allow a non-extended-confirmed editor to participate in a discussion at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (WP:AE), notwithstanding this restriction.
Draft 2

The following subsection is added to the "Enforcement" section of the Arbitration Committee's procedures:

Arbitration enforcement noticeboard

Uninvolved administrators are permitted to allow an editor to participate in a discussion at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (WP:AE) notwithstanding any restrictions that would have otherwise prevented the editor from participating (such as the extended confirmed restriction).

Arbitrator comments
  • I know some arbitrators were planning on going the other way so I wanted to provide draft language for this. This would be a change from the status quo but I suppose I could be convinced. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we go this route, I'd prefer the method in Draft 1 and limiting its scope to AE rather than internal discussions generally. I think Draft 2 could be a good idea if we had more to add to it, but at the moment creating a section on AE just to note an exception seems more confusing than clarifying. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Ryulong

Initiated by Mythdon at 04:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Ryulong arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


Statement by Mythdon

I have a question as to whether the restrictions listed here are still in effect even though the conduction probation (listed here and here) has expired.

Back in September of 2009, I was banned from Wikipedia for six months following this discussion. That ban was followed by a six month conduct probationary period (to which I was blocked indefinitely shortly after that ban expired). During the ban discussion, one of the arbitrators at the time (FayssalF) said here "To clarify for once. The six-month conduct probationary period starts right after the end of the ban (from March 2010 to September 2010). During that same period, Mythdon will be placed under the same current restrictions (details of restrictions can be found at the updated case's page)" (the topic ban listed here here had already been imposed by that time).

I was unblocked in 2012 and back in 2016, I appealed a "voluntary topic ban" to AN, which was closed as rescinded with a consensus of four editors. But since that discussion concerns a "voluntary topic ban", does it address the topic ban listed here?

Based on to run under the current restrictions and FayssalF's clarification, I had read this as to mean that whatever discretionary sanctions that were imposed upon me under the authorization of the conduct probation would automatically expire when the conduct probation expired (and that to run under the current restrictions meant the discretionary sanctions). Having taken another look at it, I had asked about this in the English Wikipedia Discord and they advised me to bring my concerns here.

It's both a general question and relating to my case, and long question short, do discretionary sanctions authorized by conduct probation remain in effect after the expiration of the conduct probation?

—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: I'm not sure what the policy was regarding discretionary sanctions back when this was originally imposed, but I've had different administrators give conflicting opinions about whether they thought the sanction(s) would remain in force after the probation expired.
One administrator here said he was sure he did not have the authority to impose sanctions longer than the duration of the probation (in response to my question asking him why he changed a revert ban from "indefinite" to "for the duration of Mythdon's conduct probation". While another administrator at the time (Yunshui) said they "still support the continuation of an interaction ban with Ryulong and a topic ban on Tokusatsu-realted pages for a six month probationary period.". While the imposing administrator (Fritzpol, who's now retired) said "When your conduct probation is over, you can ask me for a review and I'll look into it.". While FayssalF's clarification here as well as the remedy here (that I mentioned earlier), doesn't specify whether the "current restrictions" included the discretionary sanction(s) or not.
It's conflicting clarification that I'd gotten between 2009 up until my 2012 unblock, even though the case itself doesn't mention whether the sanctions remain in force or not. But based on your clarification as well as the clarification I received over Discord (where I was advised by an arbitrator to bring my concerns here) and having read WP:ACDS, it sounds like the discussion here didn't actually revoke this topic ban and that this does remain in force under current policy.
Either way, if there's a motion along these lines, I'd be okay with just the topic ban portion being superseded (even if the interaction ban remains in force thereafter). The main concern for me (if applicable) is to have the consensus here reflected/shown on the case itself. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of that answers that questions. Thanks. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 11:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Worm That Turned: Have noted the motion. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Ryulong: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Ryulong: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I've spent a little time looking, and I don't believe the sanctions imposed by Fritzpoll (noted here) have been rescinded. Equally, this appears to have been largely settled in 2015 by motion, with no further issues - so I would happily support a motion to vacate those sanctions. I'd like to hear other thoughts before proposing one though. WormTT(talk) 08:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and noting my response to the general question - yes, discretionary sanctions authorised by conduct probation remain in effect beyond the expiry of the probation. WormTT(talk) 08:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with WTT's assessment of the situation. Primefac (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree with Worm. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mythdon: going forward you would just be able to point anyone towards this discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with Worm that the sanctions are still in effect. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Mythdon restriction lifted

Mythdon's topic ban from editing any page that falls under WikiProject Tokusatsu (including articles), and any discussions relating to those pages, broadly construed, is lifted.

Enacted - KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. I believe we can remove this DS from 13 years ago, especially as all the other items from the case are cleared away. Specifically leaving the IBan in place as I generally don't like lifting them without a specific reason and Mythdon has stated they have no problem with it remaining. WormTT(talk) 13:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think my first choice would have just been to archive this with the clarification above. But I'm willing to do this as a second choice. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No longer needed to prevent disruption. --BDD (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Primefac (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No obvious issues since 2009 when the restrictions were put in place. --Izno (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Maxim(talk) 01:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Donald Albury 12:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Arbitrator comments
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=1086722133"