Requests for clarification

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header

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

• Heimstern (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• SQRT5P1D2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [1]
• Taivo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [2]
• ChrisO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [3]
• J.delanoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [4]

Statement by Heimstern

Not entirely sure if this is going to be a request for clarification or amendment, but starting out here. In ARBMAC2, SQRT5P1D2 was topic-banned from all Macedonia-related articles and talk pages. Recently, he began contributing at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia, which ChrisO, Taivo and I view as a violation of his topic ban (at least the spirit if not the letter). SQRT5P1D2 disagrees, as seen at this request for enforcement. As J.delanoy also feels SQRT5P1D2 is not technically in violation, I'm coming here to ask for clarification. I feel it's abundantly clear that a user banned from talk pages about Macedonia should be equally banned from Wikipedia-space pages that are effectively serving in lieu of talk pages for these articles, such as centralized discussion pages. I ask the committee to clarify this and, if necessary, make proper amendments to the case.

• To Coren: Can we then treat this situation that way? I.e., can he be reverted and blocked if he continues, or should we wait for more opinions? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Taivo

I agree with Heimstern's assessment. The "Centralized" discussion is in lieu of separate discussions at a variety of articles, so the topic ban should cover that centralized discussion.

Statement by Shadowmorph

I think the topic ban is clear that it is about article space since that was the concern of disruption by this user as it was drafted by the arbitration members. I believe that since many ARBMAC2 parties that were in various way sanctioned by ARBMAC2 did also participate in the centralized discussion it might be the case that this party should be allowed to participate. In any case it was not clear whether that space was covered by his topic ban to suggest that he violated it that. A clarification might be more needed now.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 06:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that the fact that the discussion is not in article space is probably happenstance.

Statement by ChrisO

The fact that the discussion is taking place in the Wikipedia namespace rather than article namespace is purely happenstance - the discussion was placed there at my suggestion. It could just as easily have happened in article space. I cannot imagine that the Arbcom meant for SQRT to banned from the discussion if it took place in article space but not if it was in the Wikipedia namespace. This strikes me as an instance of a sanctioned user attempting to exploit an apparent loophole to evade his topic ban. Let's not forget, SQRT was sanctioned for going off-wiki to solicit nationalist partisans to participate in Wikipedia discussions about Macedonia; he's a single-purpose account entirely focused on the Macedonia naming issue; and he registered his account specifically to agitate about the naming issue, having (so he says) participated as an IP editor before. His willingness to solicit meatpuppets and his utter lack of acceptance that what he did was disallowed indicates that he continues to pose a threat of disruption to the ongoing discussions. His "contribution" in this instance was to delete sourced statements, despite the discussion referees and Rlevse explicitly warning against that kind of behaviour (see here). He's exactly the kind of user we don't want to participate in Macedonia-related topics, whichever namespace they happen to be in. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SQRT5P1D2

ArbCom decided that I should be "topic-banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages, as defined in All related articles under 1RR for one year.".

Quoting from the relevant section, "articles related to Macedonia (defined as any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to Macedonia, Macedonia nationalism, Greece related articles that mention Macedonia, and other articles in which how Macedonia will be referred to is an issue) fall under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned".

Summarising, I was "topic banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages" as these "fall under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned".

According to Wikipedia, an "article is a page that has encyclopedic information on it" and articles "belong to the main namespace of Wikipedia pages"; this "does not include any pages in any of the specified namespaces that are used for particular purposes".

The centralised discussion does not fall under the prohibition. It's not an article, but a discussion about the naming of a term in the articles. It belongs to the Wikipedia (project) namespace, not the main (article) namespace. It isn't an "article talk page" by definition, as a discussion concerning terminology that will be used in multiple Wikipedia namespaces in the future.

Furthermore, my edit was completely justified, as there is not a single reliable verifiable source available to justify a verbal POV claim. I also contributed new data and helped towards a neutral tone in the presentation.

Concluding, while I abide by ArbCom's decision and Wikipedia's policies, I expect from users who did much worse than what is claimed that I did, but take part in the discussion, to contribute towards a positive environment. That means making NPOV edits and leave behind the battleground mentality that lead to remedies against them.

• As a note to other parties, until now, there is no consensus among Arbitrators about this matter. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• At first glance, it seems clear that this is a violation of the topic ban. Please note and remember that when someone is banned from a topic, then there is no "list" of pages that cannot be edited: new articles, centralized discussion, AfD subpages, requests for comments, etc. are all off-limits when within the banned topic. — Coren ^(talk) 10:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  At this time, applying the topic ban restrictions to discussion about/within the topic that lie outside article space is appropriate and supported by the decision. I would recommend, given the confusion, that it not be applied retroactively however.

  For the record, a topic or article ban that explicitly includes associated talk page can generally be inferred to include other discussion about those articles that happen lie outside the article talk page proper but are clearly tied to the same topic or area of dispute. — Coren ^(talk) 13:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Topic bans come in two main varities: Those that prohibit an editor completely from a topic and those that permit an editor to participate in discussions. It may be necessary going forward to rephrase such bans in a way that makes it clear that a topic ban is a topic ban, especially in relation to the former. I will support a motion to clarify this breadth in topic bans if it is necessary. A topic ban is meaningless if an editor can simply fork discussion of the topic to another namespace. --Vassyana (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This is mere wikilawyering by SQRT5P1D2. A topic ban is just that, a topic ban, not a ban in certain name spaces and not others, especially when talk pages are included in the ban. This part of the topic just happened to take place in the centralized discussion area and is about the naming dispute, which CLEARLY is part of the topic ban, towit, "whenever the dispute over naming is concerned". Also note the AE case was closed with a 24 hour block of SQRT5P1D2 by a totally uninvolved admin. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• As per everyone else, it is clear that ongoing discussions about the articles was part of the topic ban. An amendment would be appropriate, but may be unnecessary if SQRT5P1D2 is willing to accept that the spirit of the topic ban is now clear. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• As Vassyana explains, topic bans that do not allow talk page discussion means that the users can not join any discussion about the topic on any page. In emails exchanged between SQRT5P1D2 and the ArbCom mailing list, SQRT5P1D2 has been informed that the Committee declines to modify the ruling to allow increased participation in the topic. In my opinion, we have clarified the issue and no further amendment of the ruling is needed, but if others disagree, I can support wording that clarifies the point. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

• Masem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Redking7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Masem

As one of the current moderators on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration to resolve the above, I have noticed behavior that I consider disruptive, and while per the second motion made here (sorry, I cannot find where these have been archived otherwise - the case wasn't amended to include them) gives me the ability to take action, I'd rather verify this first.

User Redking7 has been trying to start a discussion on Republic of Ireland (currently where information about the 26-county state is located), first started here, which expanded out to this much before text was removed. Ok, there's a bunch of crap happening here, but sticking to the point that ArbCom is involved, Redking's attempt to rename the ROI article at the time discussion was going on clearly (to me) is against the case's first motion from here (in that Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Now, I'm willing to give a benefit of a doubt to some degree: the above motion closed on June 12th, Redking7's suggestion opened on June 6th and it looks like it may have been spurred by that. However, Redking7 continues to argue over the details of this (see comments from this diff as well as discussion here.

I personally see this as rules-lawyering (the intent of what ArbCom wants seems perfectly clear), but rather than act first, ask questions later, I will assume good faith for now but seek ArbCom's clarification if discussion about the renaming of individual articles that are part of the Ireland naming issue can be discussed on those individual talk pages or should they be brought to the Ireland Collaboration project. --MASEM (t) 17:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Redking7

BACKGROUND/FACTS: I have been told by other editors that “ArbCom” has made rules saying:

"Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Moderators of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration may ban any contributor from the pages within the scope of the WikiProject for up to a month when a contributor is disrupting the collaboration process."

On the basis of the above, a discussion I started on Talk: Republic of Ireland concerning the title name was archived. I disputed the interpretation put on the above stating that the discussion I had started:

1. did not concern the naming of "Ireland articles" - it concerned the naming of one article, the "RoI article" - which discussion was raised in the appropriate place, the talk page of the RoI article; and
2. the above discussion in no way "disrupted" any discussion taking place on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration;

and on that basis discussion should be allowed to continue.

Notwithstanding the explanations I gave, Masem insists I have broked ArbCom rules and said he/she was giving me his/her “only warning”.

MISINTERPRETATION OF RULES: I believe Masem has misinterpreted the ArbCom rules (and others have indicated some support for me on this). Notably, Does ArbCom wish WP:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration to be used to censor article-specific discussion on article-specific talk pages? I would find that extraordinary because:

1. it is a golden rule of Wikipedia that matters concerning an article (including its title) can (and should) be raised on the talk page of the article concerned - this is really important;
2. WikiProject Ireland Collaboration relates to the naming of lots of articles - it is much easier to reach consensus on one article than it is on a whole range of articles - it would be bad for the community if progress on one article was linked to conensus being reached on a whole range of articles;
3. there is no reason why WikiProject Ireland Collaboration cannot take place in tandem with article-specific discussions on their talk page - thats the best way to ensure progress is made and a "win win" is created for all of the community;
4. on what basis can WikiProject Ireland Collaboration be used as a way of "censoring" discussions of article-specific title matters;
5. many editors feel that WikiProject Ireland Collaboration is now being used as a way to supress the discussions which have taken place on "Ireland" articles for a long time - and simply "park" the ouststanding issues on one page visited by fewer and fewer editors (as the Project's credibility has ebbed away over the months);
6. similarly, WikiProject Ireland Collaboration has been in place for quite some months now (its first three Moderators resigned); it has made no demonstrable progress; and has not set a deadline for when it will conclude (i.e. it could continue to run and run with no decisions around article titles (i.e. imposition of the status quo));
7. such "censorship" type-restrictions would be fundamentally undemocratic and ultimately don't pass the Wiki "smell test" or whats right and wrong. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• To put it simply, when I voted on the measure, I was of the mind that it required centralized discussion for those naming issues.

  Elaborating further, a significant part of the problem in the area is the reptition of the same arguments, discussions, debates, and conflicts across numerous articles over the same small set of naming considerations, often used in a divide and conquer fashion. As a practical matter, it's much easier for an editor to follow one set of discussions than to follow discussions spread out across dozens of articles. The conflict was broad and spread out across a large span of articles, with many secondary effects of the battleground atmosphere and animosity. Many issues that are primary to the conflict, such as proper naming and neutral point of view conventions, are considerations of policies and guidelines (ranging from matters of interpretation to possible rules alterations). Resolution of these issues requires broader discussion and consensus. There is a requirement for a centralized place of discussion. However, no one is being censored. Anyone may engage in discussion there and express their opinion in a constructive fashion. --Vassyana (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Vassyana. Having one location where the issues can be talked through is a large part of what needs to happen. Shifting the discussions to a more central location is appropriate for most of these naming discussions. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redking7, the moderators are directing discussion about the naming of Wiki pages to a page devoted to that topic - that is not censorship. The naming discussion needs to be structured this way because having individual discussions on each and every page is disruptive when the page names are all interdependent. The only stable consensus will be one which agrees on a name for all of the pages at the same time. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't but emphasize on what John V. has said - the only way forward is coordinated centralized discussion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Statement by SlimVirgin

I have a question about the use of checkuser in relation to Israel-Palestine articles. We've had several ArbCom cases triggered by these articles, the latest of which was settled a month ago with several topic bans. There was talk about how these could be enforced, and whether checkuser could be used more liberally than normal, but nothing came of it, so far as I know.

I'm therefore submitting this to ask that the ArbCom authorize checkusers to use the tool more liberally when it comes to these articles, and not to require a specific suspicion regarding who might be behind the checked accounts.

We have a number of accounts hanging around— some new, some set up before the ArbCom case but not used much—who are arriving to thwart normal editing in various ways. One of them, User:Hadashot Livkarim (talk · contribs), was recently found to belong to NoCal100 (talk · contribs), who had been topic-banned during the recent case. Under the current rules, it is difficult to get a CU done unless we already think we know who the account belongs to. I have just requested a CU on LuvGoldStar (talk · contribs), an obvious sock or meatpuppet, and was told by a clerk that it would violate the "no-fishing" rule: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LuvGoldStar. But I have no idea who's behind it, and it really doesn't matter. If we can't act against an account like that, then we're basically powerless to stop the kind of highly partisan editing the latest ArbCom case acted against. Editors on the I/P pages shouldn't be expected to spend hours or days analysing edits to come up with a suspicion to justify a CU, when it's obvious at a glance that the account isn't a legitimate one.

Two things would help enormously: (1) if checkusers could be told the normal "no fishing" policy is eased when it comes to I/P articles, and (2) if admins could be reminded that checkuser and other evidence isn't always necessary: that if a new account, or an account with very few edits, is acting in a highly partisan manner on the I/P pages, admins may consider blocking it under the reasonable suspicion that it's a topic-banned editor returned, or an account acting as a meatpuppet. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Vassyana

Vassyana, thank you for your response. Speaking for myself, I can only say that this is a distress signal (and I speak only of the I/P pages, though I suspect this also applies to the other nationalist disputes Chris has mentioned). Since the I/P (Samaria/Judea) case closed, we have watched as apparent sockpuppets spring up here and there—usually not new accounts, but old ones not used that often— and there's nothing we can do about it. They may be connected to banned editors, they may not be, but we're not allowed to find out by requesting a CU, unless we have a reasonable suspicion as to who is behind the account, which usually we don't. It's worth mentioning that, so far, the accounts in question are all pro-Israeli (or what they think is pro-Israeli).

It goes beyond simple POV pushing, which you have to expect, because everyone has a POV, and everyone thinks they're right to some extent. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about single-minded people who only ever edit from one strong and narrow POV, who would never dream of doing anything else, and who show no respect for NPOV at all. They are here as advocates for Israel.

What I'm asking is that the ArbCom work with the regular editors on this issue, and help get rid of the drive-bys and the socks. Two things would help:

• First, lifting the "no fishing" rule just a little, not to the point where the Foundation would need to be involved necessarily. I'm talking only about relaxing "no fishing" so that we don't have to guess who's operating the account before we can request one, not doing totally random checks. We would still need to show that the account had behaved suspiciously.

• Secondly, advice to admins to be more aggressive in topic-banning accounts with very few edits who conveniently turn up to revert or add support for a position. A statement such as, "The Committee hereby invites administrators to pay special attention to new accounts, or old accounts with few recent contributions, who arrive to focus on specific positions at the Israel-Palestine pages, and to have no hesitation in topic-banning them." That one sentence would make a huge difference.

The IP articles are in a mess. Specifically, material offering the Palestinian perspective is not being fairly represented. It is left out entirely, or it is added in a mealy-mouthed fashion so that the sense of it gets lost. I say this as someone who is not known as a pro-Palestinian editor—far from it, so I'm not simply trying to make things easier for "my POV." I'm genuinely interested in finding a way to enforce the real meaning of NPOV, which is the representation of all majority and significant-minority POVs in reliable sources (preferably historians in this area), even the POVs that make certain editors uncomfortable. NPOV does not mean that everything on Wikipedia must be acceptable to right-wing Israelis. I'm sorry if that's an inappropriate way to put it, but it's the bottom line. There are a small number of editors on the I/P articles who just want to be allowed to write articles, using scholarly sources, in whatever direction those sources take us. But we need help from the ArbCom. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IronDuke

I don't see this as being particularly useful, aside from it violating WP:AGF andWP:BITE. You will, at best, generate a more sophisticated generation of socks. Why not use the ARBPIA sanction process already in place? Indeed, I wonder why it wasn't used on the editors involved in the Judea Samaria case -- much needless waste of talent on both sides would have been avoided, as well as the apparently very great temptation to sock. IronDuke 02:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ChrisO

I'm interested in this proposal primarily because of its applicability to two cases in which I was involved, in which sock- or meatpuppetry was a significant issue - Scientology and Macedonia. Sockpuppetry was one of the main issues in the Scientology case and led directly to the IP ban of editors from Church of Scientology networks. In the Macedonia case, there was clear evidence of editors seeking to recruit meatpuppets off-wiki. In both cases, a number of long-term partisan editors were topic-banned or given lengthy blocks. There is a high likelihood of further sockpuppeting in both cases. SlimVirgin's proposal would be a useful way of dealing with this eventuality. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Thatcher

Checkuser may be used to investigate and prevent disruption, broadly construed. The response that  CheckUser is not for fishing is not part of checkuser policy, rather, it is a filter, used at WP:RFCU to discourage particular kinds of user-requested checks ("User:Smith is bugging me and I want to know if he is a sock of someone" kind of thing). It is also often the case that checkuser will not result in a clear finding without a suspect in mind, particularly with certain dynamic ISPs. With a suspect we can sometimes at least say "possible--same ISP, same geographic area" and let other admins review the contributions. "Fishing" cases are sometimes accepted, and may also be self-initiated, as long as the element of "investigate and prevent disruption" is satisfied. Where I would become concerned is where a checkuser is also a partisan editor on the topic or article in question; "involved" checkusers should seek a second hand to carry out checkuser investigations just as involved admins should seek assistance in carrying out administrative tasks. Barring "involvement", there is no reason that checkusers can not be more aggressive in patrolling disputed articles and topics, especially when subject to Arbitration remedies, provided the purpose is to investigate and prevent disruption. Thatcher 02:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MastCell

As a tangential notice, I've closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LuvGoldStar by indefinitely blocking LuvGoldStar (talk · contribs) on the basis of behavioral evidence that I consider compelling. I don't have anything of substance to add to the comments above, though I would welcome further brainstorming on how best to deal with problem editing on the topics in question, as well as any guidance for administrators who patrol the area. MastCell ^Talk 20:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nathan

One thing to keep in mind is that a CU on this account had already been performed prior to the filing of the SPI case. As the clerk who declined the RFCU request, the no-fishing problem wasn't the main issue - without comparing LuvGoldStar to specific other accounts, a new CU check was unlikely to result in new evidence.

I don't think it unreasonable to allow checkusers some latitude in checking suspicious accounts in very controversial areas; that latitude was used in this case, but it appears checkuser evidence was simply not sufficient to come to a conclusion. That happens, particularly with committed and experienced trolls. An administrator appropriately weighed the behavioral evidence and made a decision - I'm not sure what other outcome was possible. Perhaps the best use of this clarification request is to communicate that the first CU was acceptable under the circumstances, and thus encourage other checkusers to take similar steps when appropriate. Nathan ^T 22:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Could the clerks or the commenting editors please invite a few of the administrators that commonly work at ANI and arbitration enforcement to comment on this request? I'm interested in hearing the views of more admins that work in the trenches before coming to a conclusion. I also want to hear what commenting editors specifically want ArbCom to do in this circumstance. A sock- and meat-puppet enforcement provision? An encouragement to use exisitng process? Something else? Please bear in mind while considering this that CheckUser is bound to a some degree by Foundation and Meta policy. Also note that while ArbCom may clarify policy and principles (and institute enforcement provisions), refashioning them would require a community or Foundation motion that is outside the remit of Arbcom (except perhaps by way of encouraging discussion or resolution on the issue). I am also of the mind to think that to a large degree, many of the issues uncovered and/or highlighted by arbitration cases must be resolved by the community if it requires a significant revision, addition, or other alteration to standing policy and principles. --Vassyana (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Awaiting comments from other arbitrators. I would also appreciate it if admins working in enforcement could comment on SlimVirgin's thoughtful comments in response to me. --Vassyana (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that the issue is as one narrows down the scope, when does 'fishing' become proper detective work of a number of suspects. It has been a vexed area and a number of editors topic-banned. We now have an audit subcommittee looking at tool usage and comments from Thatcher here would be appreciated. My feeling is veering towards condoning use of the tools but I do agree that open discussion and consensus-forming is prudent.Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This is not a clarification request. If we need to augment this case or any other, please raise suggestions at Amendments. However I would want a lot of evidence that this area is especially more sock-prone than all the other hot spots. Development of the checkuser policy to better deal with all these hot spots should be undertaken by the community in the usual manner, such as Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Mythdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by Mythdon

I am requesting clarification for the wording of the terms of my soon-to-be mentorship.

In term B of "Mythdon restricted and placed under mentorship", it states "Mythdon should consult and take guidance from the mentor when issues arise concerning their editing or behavior". I am confused as to who this is referring to. The confusion is is that the word "their" refers to multiple other people, but it's clear that in the other restriction(s), the word discusses me as evidenced by their wording. However, I am not certain as to what the word means in this term (term B). Here's the question: Does "their" in term B refer to issues regarding my editing/behavior or other editors editing/behavior?

I am also asking for clarification on the wording of term C. It states "During mentorship, Mythdon is restricted from making edits such as unnecessary questions and abusive warnings to users' talk pages if not approved by their mentor" - In regards to "abusive warnings", does this go for all warnings, or does it simply go for warnings (i.e. my past warnings to admins/rollbackers about their use of rollback) that were judged to be abusive? The word "abusive" raises questions, and did raise a similar questions here, but that doesn't clarify my question. As an unrelated note, while my next statement here would not deal with something that needs any clarification, if anyone ever asks, as a result of arbitrator FayssalF's statement "After all, you'll [Mythdon] be consulting with him before making any edit to anyone's talk page", besides my own talk page, I have made absolutely zero edits to user talk namespace since the closure of the case.

While you may find this request for clarification a bit ridiculous, please seriously consider clarifying.

If any other editor has additional questions regarding this or any other remedy, please do so. It may very well clarify something that I thought was some other way.

No, I have not found or attempted to find a mentor yet, in case an arbitrator asks me. If I do get assigned a mentor (which will most certainly likely happen), and if I edit during the mentorship, these are things I need to know before any interpretations are made. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note by Mythdon

I would like to remind Risker and Newyorkbrad that before acting as arbitrators in this request, that they recused themselves from the relevant case voluntarily. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions by Mythdon

In term D, it states:

Mythdon shall not comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about Ryulong on any page in Wikipedia until a mentor is appointed and may only comment after the appointment with his mentor's prior approval.

While this term only covers comments about the user, I am unsure as to whether comments to the user apply as well. Does this also apply to interactions? I believe so. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After the mentors appointment, in regards to "...may only comment after the appointment with his mentor's prior approval.", would this "approval" approve of all future comments to/about Ryulong without further approvals or would I have to gain approval for every single comment? My suspicions are leaning towards "...approval for every single comment". —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-statement by Stifle

Regarding the first point, I hate to say it, but I told you so. :)

As you were. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

• Recused - Tiptoety ^talk 06:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Recused - MBisanz ^talk 08:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Recused - Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Regarding clause (b), "their" refers to your (Mythdon's) editing; see singular they.
• Regarding clause (c), if you (Mythdon) are uncertain whether an intended warning is abusive, you are to consult your mentor. The onus to avoid borderline behavior is on you at this point. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding clause (d): yes, you are restricted in terms of making any comment to Ryulong as well as making any comment about Ryulong. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 01:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I wasn't planning on looking at this, let alone commenting on it, but Mythdon is correct that I had recused in the original case, so I will formally recuse from this as well. Risker (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Recused. (Don't worry, I wouldn't have forgotten.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Kirill succinctly makes the point. --Vassyana (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Kirill's comments. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Also concur with Kirill.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Kirill as well. Wizardman 19:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Kirill phrases it well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• In regards to the last question raised by Mythodon, that Kirill has not answered, the mentor will be phrasing the approval in a manner that they see fit. They may make broad or narrow approvals, or they may require that you seek permission for every single comment. The requirement of this remedy is that there is prior approval of the edits you make. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]