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!)

Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
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.
Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
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

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127

Amendment request: Falun Gong

Initiated by Marvin 2009 at 05:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: Falun Gong 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

Marvin 2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
PatCheng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
PCPP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Guerillero (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Information about amendment request

indefinite topic ban from Falun Gong, broadly construed

Statement by Marvin 2009

Can an editor who has been under topic banned use a sock puppet to report another editor to arbitration enforcement? Clearly not. And if the editor do so before the sock puppetry is uncovered, should any sanction arising from his or her complaint be nullified, after the sock puppetry is uncovered?

By the end of June, I was informed for indefinite topic ban from Falun Gong in response to PatCheng's arbitration enforcement request. On July 27, both PatCheng and PCPP were blocked, as PatCheng has been confirmed to be a sock puppet of PCPP who has topic banned on Falun Gong since Nov 2011. I am requesting a clarification that whether the topic ban enforced on me due to PatCheng's AE request should be nullified? Thanks. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 05:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tantusa: In response to PatCheng's complain, yes, in the beginning one admin was concerned about edit warring and aspersions casting.User_talk:Marvin_2009/AEresponse#A.Communication_with_admin_Seraphimbladei I replied to the admin right away at that time explaining how each of my altogether 7 edits in June was not edit warring (even not 1RR), and nor did i cast any aspersions in communicating with others. On the contrary, I was the one who was attacked by POV editors. After that, there has been no further response from that admin. Thanks. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 13:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PatCheng

Statement by PCPP

Statement by Guerillero

Statement by Newslinger

See the following discussions for context:

WP:AN § Appealing my topic ban – posted 27 July 2020
User talk:Guerillero § Could you please consider to cancel the topic ban added on me? – posted 28 July 2020

This amendment request is Marvin 2009's third appeal of their topic ban this week. — Newslinger talk 09:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tantusar

That PatCheng was a sockpuppet seems to me to be largely irrelevant to whether Marvin 2009 should or should not have received a topic ban. The administrators on the enforcement request found that Marvin was edit warring and casting aspersions. PatCheng's behaviour does not change these findings. Suggest amendment request be denied. Tantusar (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2020 (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.

Falun Gong: Clerk notes

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

This request seeks to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. I have therefore reformatted this request as an amendment request for the original case and named the administrator who imposed the sanction as a party. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong: Arbitrator views and discussion

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 By the end of June, [[User_talk:Marvin_2009#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction|I was informed for indefinite topic ban from Falun Gong in response to PatCheng's arbitration enforcement request]]. On July 27, both {{diff2|969900688|PatCheng}} and {{diff2|969900750|PCPP}}  were blocked, as PatCheng has been confirmed to be a sock puppet of PCPP who {{diff2|459824731|has topic banned on Falun Gong since Nov 2011}}. I am requesting a clarification that whether the topic ban enforced on me due to PatCheng's AE request should be nullified? Thanks. [[user talk:Marvin 2009 |Precious Stone (Marvin 2009)]] 05:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
+{{re|Tantusa}} In response to PatCheng's complain, yes, in the beginning one admin was concerned about edit warring and aspersions casting.[[User_talk:Marvin_2009/AEresponse#A.Communication_with_admin_Seraphimbladei I replied to the admin right away at that time]] explaining how each of my altogether 7 edits in June was not edit warring (even not 1RR), and nor did i cast any aspersions in communicating with others. On the contrary, I was the one who was attacked by POV editors. After that, there has been no further response from that admin. Thanks. [[user talk:Marvin 2009 |Precious Stone (Marvin 2009)]] 13:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 === Statement by PatCheng ===