Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

Wikipedia:Resolving disputes contains the official policy on dispute resolution for English Wikipedia. Arbitration is generally the last step for user conduct-related disputes that cannot be resolved through discussion on noticeboards or by asking the community its opinion on the matter. This page is the central location for discussing the various requests for arbitration processes. Requesting that a case be taken up here isn't likely to help you, but editors active in the dispute resolution community should be able to assist.

Please click here to file an arbitration case • Please click here for a guide to arbitration

Amendment request: Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae (July 2021)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by Ritchie333 at 11:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 12#Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. After discussion with both parties, the Committee resolves that Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) be indefinitely banned from interacting with, or commenting on Praxidicae (talk · contribs) anywhere on the English Wikipedia. Praxidicae has agreed to abide by a mutual interaction ban for the same duration. This is subject to the usual exceptions.

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

• Ritchie333 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Praxidicae (talk · contribs) notified by clerk

Information about amendment request

• After discussion with both parties, the Committee resolves that Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) be indefinitely banned from interacting with, or commenting on Praxidicae (talk · contribs) anywhere on the English Wikipedia. Praxidicae has agreed to abide by a mutual interaction ban for the same duration. This is subject to the usual exceptions.

• Revocation of the interaction ban in its entirety. Or, second choice, change sanction to "Ritchie333 and Praxidicae are indefinitely prohibited from replying to each other in discussions"

Statement by Ritchie333

In August 2019, I was subject to an indefinite interaction ban with the user “Praxidicae”. The announcement of the ban is here. Since then I was blocked twice on 9 August and 19 October 2019. I did not appeal the first block as I was taking an extended leave of absence when it was placed. I appealed the second block successfully; the appeal is here.

During this period, I was having issues with off-wiki events unrelated to Wikipedia (which Arbcom have been informed of), which caused me to lash out at people. I apologised for doing so at the time, and can only apologise again. Administrators should be held to a high level of civility and accountability, and the best way I can illustrate that is to lead by example. I do not foresee incidents like these happening again. I make no comments on the views of others in the above threads, and would invite you to read them and judge for yourself.

The principal reason for reviewing the ban is I would like to be able to cite these events as an example in the ongoing discussions regarding the Universal Code of Conduct. In particular, it would be a useful example to highlight how administrators can and should be sanctioned, and how harassment-based sanctions must be placed carefully otherwise they may reduce the community’s trust in how they are handled. As a secondary reason, it would be helpful to delete articles this user tags as {{db-copyvio}}, which I can't see being problematic.

As a secondary choice, and an alternative to vacating the ban, I have proposed an alternative to tighten the restriction to just replies in discussions. However, even if the ban is revoked entirely, I do not intend to directly interact or converse with the other user, and that will continue to be the case.

It has been drawn to my attention that a further reason for vacating the ban would be it would allow Praxidicae to have a reasonable run at Request for Adminship. I have no opinion on this, and should it occur, I will recuse from the RfA and not comment on it; in a similar manner, I recused from !voting at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fram 2.

I have reviewed this appeal with Arbcom, who support posting it here. For obvious reasons, I have not notified the other party directly (does this violate an interaction ban?) and would be helpful if a clerk or other editor could do this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: The reason I want to talk about the issue at UCOC discussions is because every now and again somebody says "admins never get sanctioned" or "admins are above the law", and I want to say - no, that's not true. Admins can be sanctioned, and at times they should be sanctioned. In my case, it caused me to take a long hard look at what I was doing to myself and whether I had a sustainable career on Wikipedia. While admins shouldn't go around blocking other admins gung-ho, sometimes just doing it to send the signal "hey, admins are not above the law and held to higher standards - cut that out" gives the community a general feeling they'll be heard. I've never born grudges; the example that comes to mind is I'm still on good terms with the admin who issued the second block, PMC, and while we've not talked much since, it's all been civil and polite from my view. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Vermont: I understand what you're saying, but my feeling is - why take the risk? It only takes one admin to say "no I don't like that" and block. cf: Floq's comment "Right now, he can't talk about it at all, even if he 100% admits fault". I get the feeling there seem to be a bunch of people out to get me and want to throw me off the site (cf. WP:FRAMGATE) and it's a shame they can't just come directly to me (on or off wiki) and air their concerns, as I am reasonable. The specific driver for this is is in the WMF's Christel Steinberger's proposal for a UCOC drafting committee, which included the following : "There would also be Wikimedians who have falsely been accused of harassment" and I think that's a fair description of what's happened to me (eg: Pawkingthree's evidence). I can see the rationale behind a short block for someone for being in a bad mood and personally attacking someone, or for doing something stupid, but I have been on the receiving end of harassment here from trolls and banned editors and would never do it to anyone else. I'm happy to talk more about my concerns in a less public area if you're amenable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: The appeal is as originally stated. The reply above is a bit more of a detailed explanation of why I might be incredibly motivated to work with the WMF and ensure the UCOC works for as many editors are possible, taking in a wide variety of views and experiences. I hope it's kind of obvious that "a bunch of people are out to get me" is a non-starter for an actual appeal. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@BDD: To give you an example, the comment that led to the block on 9 August 2019 was made because I was frustrated hardly any comments around the sanctions addressed the underlying issues, which are basically assume good faith and please don't bite the newbies, and doing this to female editors writing articles about women also impacts systemic bias. Beeblebrox wrote a great comment the other day which conveys my views precisely. "We get so very many clueless new people every single day that misunderstand what Wikipedia is and want to use it to promote something. Some just keep spamming until they get blocked, some realize they are in the wrong place and leave, and a few of them actually try to understand what the problem is and correct it. That's good faith, not bad. That they make other edits that are compliant with policy is also a good thing. The whole premise is flawed. Reformed spammers and vandals are a real thing, they are not all deviously plotting to destroy Wikipedia by laying low for a couple years, only to spring their trap when the time is right." I would have been less likely to lash out, personally attack people in frustration, and then take a lengthy leave of absence, if we had been discussing these issues. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

For another example of how the interaction ban harmed the encyclopedia, in my view, consider Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive330#Brewers in Nottinghamshire, where I was unable to properly assist SandrinaHatman and change her viewpoint : "It just feels disrespectful and frankly like bullying the way people behave on here. Supposedly you want more women editors. I'm just not seeing this in the behaviour of some of the people on here". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• @CaptainEek: I'm going to make one more comment and then shush as I feel I've said enough on this matter now .... the disagreement (from my end) wasn't CSDs. After all, I recently spoke highly of DGG, despite having disagreed on quite a few CSDs, and I've also disagreed with Kudpung on similar issues from time to time, and I certainly don't have any issues in getting on with him. If you want to discuss further I'd prefer to do it quietly via email, rather than filling this board up with a wall of text. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Praxidicae

I can’t make a meaningful statement as I have a lot going on in real life that takes precedence and I do not have access to a computer for the foreseeable future. I do however oppose any loosening of this restriction or any changes given the multiple violations and I’m confused by the rfa statement as this iban doesn’t preclude me from running, though I have no desire to ever rfa on English Wikipedia so it’s a non starter. I don’t have the mental bandwidth to say or deal with this beyond this brief statement. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Nick

I'm not at all convinced this is a good idea - I don't believe Ritchie has ever really understood how seriously troubling his behaviour was in relation to Praxidicae and as a result, I'm not entirely convinced they're genuinely well placed to avoid repeating such behaviour - though of course a repetition of such behaviour this time around might result in more stricter sanction, an outcome both justifiable and regrettable in equal measure. That being the case, I generally support retaining the IBAN as previously imposed.

I also find myself being incredibly puzzled by the mention of RfA - if Ritchie doesn't intend to take part in any RfA concerning Praxidicae, why would they need the interaction ban removed, what would they intend to say that is prevented by an interaction ban but which isn't involvement in the RfA itself ? I know Ritchie has tried to manoeuvre himself into a position as something akin to a gatekeeper at RfA, so I'm particularly curious as to why he thinks he needs the IBAN lifted in relation to any Praxidicae RfA.

-- Nick (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by valereee

• Nick, I am shocked that anyone could interpret Ritchie's work at RfA as him trying to manoeuvre himself into a position as something akin to a gatekeeper there. That is an ugly accusation, and if anything the opposite is true. Ritchie has tried to keep an eye out for likely candidates and has made open invitations for interested editors to contact him so he can help them through the process. We need more people doing what Ritchie does at RfA, not fewer.

And re: why mention a potential Prax RfA at all -- because the iban could be held against Prax there. Lifting the ban lifts it from both of them, which means Prax would have one fewer potential issue to address during an RfA. —valereee (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Nigel Ish

Nick, I read Ritchie's statement as saying that they didn't want the interaction ban being a barrier to Praxidicae running for admin rather than some sort of gatekeeper role. Whether that would work is a different matter, however, as memories are long at RfA. Ritchie raises an interesting point in that they want to use their case to inform discussions about the proposed UCOC, where it may be relevant. Does Praxidicae (talk · contribs) (or anyone else involved in the case) have a problem with discussing it in the context of the UCOC? If not, could it be possible to lift the interaction ban just for this purpose?Nigel Ish (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by FeydHuxtable

Seems a sensible request. To address Nicks "analyses": Ritchie's no more a gatekeeper than most other RfA regs – he's not one of the most effective opposers. As per Valeree, Ritchie's more of a door opener at RfA – he likes to find people to nominate & support their ticket, as do several other admins. In a small way, requesting this iban lift helps open the RfA door for Praxidicae, should she be interested in that. Ritchie's well liked, perhaps especially by the dozen or so RfA regs that have met him in person (he rolled 16 on Charisma). While Ritchie now views his past interactions with Prax as a mistake, from other perspectives they were far from "seriously troubling". They could be seen as reasonable pro newbie balancing of Prax's quite high quality control standards. Some may see the (sort of) 1-way iBan as an injustice and be less likely to oppose if it's lifted. (To be clear we're probably only talking about 1-4 opposes here, and none would be likely to explicitly say they were opposing due to the Ritchie iban. Or maybe some are seeing it as a 2 way ban & hence a sanction against Prax, & again a lift could possibly avoid 1-2 potential RfA opposers) Other than the reasons Ritchies gave, lifting the iban could avoid situations like the 2nd block which was technically correctly but judged by the community as unnecessary. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Floq

I like and respect both Ritchie and Prax, and found Ritchie's behavior at the time puzzling and disappointing. I believe him when he says the circumstances that led to that have changed.

If I understand right, there are three main reasons to reduce/remove:

• Ritchie wants to be able to use this as an example of how admins can and should be sanctioned, in an ongoing discussion about the UCC. Right now, he can't talk about it at all, even if he 100% admits fault
• Ritchie wants to be able to delete CSD noms made by Prax
• Someone else has pointed out to Ritchie that the very existence of Prax's iban with him might harm any future Prax RFA; particularly if Prax was prevented from explaining the circumstances. I don't think this amounts to Ritchie trying to gatekeep RFA.

My lingering concerns are threefold:

• If Ritchie wants to be able to bring this up as an example in a discussion, that's a bad idea unless he takes 100% responsibility for the problems. If he makes any criticism whatsoever of Prax, no matter how gentle or how forgiving or how magnanimous he thinks he's being, then that's just picking at scabs, and definitely something to not do.
• The CSD-related problem with Ritchie and Prax was, I believe, due to Ritchie aggressively disagreeing with Prax's CSD noms. While I'm sure Ritchie regrets how he handled that disagreement, I'm fairly sure they still really disagree with each other about it. I therefore don't really find Ritchie's second reason convincing.
• Due to past bad blood, I'm concerned that if Ritchie and Prax start talking to each other, there's a chance it will slowly disintegrate into a negative feedback loop.

In general, depending on how Prax responds, I think the ArbCom should be open to the idea of removing or relaxing the iban, but maybe with an unofficial agreement (not written down somewhere as an Official Sanction) between two good faith editors:

• Ritchie should agree not to bring up this iban as a discussion point, unless he makes zero comments criticizing Prax
• Ritchie should not decline any of Prax's CSD noms (they should be free to accept them)
• Both editors should be asked to for the most part stay away from each other, and if they do interact occasionally, they should bend over backwards to be kind

Maybe that's too complicated, I don't know. If this does pass, I hope it does some good for both editors to note that someone (me) who's judgement I think is thought well of by both parties, believes that the other editor is generally a good egg, and that they can be trusted to abide by something informally agree to. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Vermont

Speaking as a Meta-Wiki administrator and someone involved in UCoC development, the vast majority of UCoC discussions and consultations occur on Meta-Wiki, with the exception of a handful of local language consultations, such as this. I am not sure about the English Wikipedia's policy as it relates to Arbitration Committee sanctions and their applicability to actions on other Wikimedia projects; generally, if the IBAN applies solely to the English Wikipedia, it would not significantly hinder Ritchie's ability to participate in UCOC discussions in the capacity that they described. Regards, Vermont (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by isaacl

I don't feel that the outcome of the amendment request should be determined by a desire to use this situation as an example in code of conduct discussions. Other editors can bring it up.

I disagree with setting conditions that limit what can be said in code of conduct discussions. If the commenter cannot speak candidly, it's harder to weigh the significance of the example of admin sanctions being raised. isaacl (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

No comment on the request itself, and it predates my time, but every now and again somebody says "admins never get sanctioned" or "admins are above the law", and I want to say - no, that's not true I suspect that may have been my comment at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vami IV claiming that admins don't get blocked unilaterally by another admin, and as a counter-example I was given a link to Ritchie being blocked by an arb enforcing this IBAN.

So yes, I suppose an admin was technically blocked for something (albeit I'm not sure arbitration enforcement of an ArbCom remedy counts). One needn't look further than Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_44#Arbitration_motion_regarding_Ritchie333_and_Praxidicae to see exactly what the cost was of sanctioning an admin. That is, 37,923 words (253,158 characters) of hot air. Given this, it's debatable whether this is a good example to prove "admins aren't above the law". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Pawnkingthree

The problem with relaxing the ban to only include replying to each other in discussions, is that both editors are active in speedy deletions, with Praxidicae looking to rid Wikipedia of spam and COI and Ritchie coming from the opposite end of wanting to rescue articles. The October 2019 block of Ritchie came about when he deleted the copyvio and rebooted an article that Praxidicae had tagged for deletion. Whether that counted as "undoing each other's edits" as described in WP:IBAN was much debated at User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_103. In that discussion Premeditated Chaos said one of the main reasons the IBAN was enacted was Ritchie's insistence on hovering over Praxidicae's CSD tags and reverting them and AmandaNP said, it seems like Ritchie is stalking Praxidicae's contributions with the amount of time between edits and frequency of this occurring. This is directly prohibited in our harassment policy and is why the IBan was enforced here. Ritchie has denied doing this, but I think it would be wise for him to continue to avoid removing, addressing or otherwise involving himself at all with any of Praxidicae's CSD tags if the ban is loosened.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Jackattack1597

@ProcrastinatingReader: I'm just chiming in here to note that, looking at the discussion, most of the comments after Ritchie's Iban was imposed seemed to mainly be due to heightened tensions after the Fram case, and people dissatisfied with a decision based on private evidence, not just because of an admin being sanctioned. Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Another comment: Isn't this an appeal of a 2-way interaction ban, and not of a one-way ban? I've seen a couple of people refer to this as a one-way Iban appeal, but isn't the interaction ban 2-way?Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Question from SN54129

@Ritchie333: on account of respecting you, etc., I wasn't going to comment, but your latest update is begging, I think, for some clarification. You see—and I may well have completely misread—your original reasons for wanting the one-way IBAN vacated were that it would allow you to talk about it on meta, delete copyvios and support Praxicicae's RfA on en.wp. However, according to your latest statement, the one-way IBAN should be removed because a bunch of people out to get me and want to throw me off the site and that it's up to them they can't air their concerns, as I am reasonable. Further, are you now saying that you "have falsely been accused of harassment" (since you say that's a fair description of what's happened to me... I have been on the receiving end of harassment here from trolls and banned editors and would never do it to anyone else.

So have the grounds of appeal shifted this being something for which you apologised for in your opening statement (indeed, profusely) to something which should never have happened and was completely unfair to you. These are two very different things. In the first case, there is an acceptance of culpability but a promise the same behaviour won't happen again; in the second, there's pushback against the original premise and a concomitant implication of your own blamelessness. ——Serial 11:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Evidence from Andrew Davidson

Statement irrelevant to the merits of the amendment request (clerk action). Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 19:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've not had much to do with this matter but happen to notice a fresh example which indicates that the root cause issue here is overzealous tagging by Praxidicae. The topic in question is Mrs Hinch – a famous cleaner, influencer and successful author. The recent timeline is: Article moved from draft to mainspace Praxidicae moves article back to draft space Article moved back to mainspace after further cleanup, which continued Praxidicae tags the article as G11 (spam) The G11 is declined by Pawnkingthree as "not purely promotional" The article is sent to AfD by another editor The outcome seemed clear and the discussion was acrimonious so I snow closed it as Keep The editors who tried to delete this seemed quite out of step with the general consensus and so it is they that should pull their horns in. The use of G11 seemed quite excessive and such tagging will naturally generate some pushback. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement By Celestina007

Andrew Davidson, In as much as I have respect for you and your dedication to the collaborative project I am nonplus that you mention Praxi in the same sentence where the word “Over zealous” is used, she sets a higher bar, but overzealous? I don’t believe this and furthermore I believe that is rude & considering to them and their body of work. Per your example above, if Praxi moved the article to Draftspace & the editor unilaterally moves it back to mainspace without a dialogue of any sort, that is wrong, The editor should have submitted it via AFC instead of move-war. As for Your second point, if the article is promotional in nature then pray tell why shouldn’t it be G11 tagged? Thirdly, an admin declining a G11 request is immaterial. Lastly when an article has been moved to draft and the same editor moves back to mainspace that is move warring like I earlier stated and sending the article to AFD is usually the best course of action. Celestina007 (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich

@BDD: FWIW I can think of two cases from the past year wherein an editor was blocked for violating an IBAN for asking about the IBAN (specifically for seeking to turn a one-way into a two-way). Both were overturned by the community on appeal, but a subsequent effort (by me) to codify that into policy did not gain consensus. Also, I started an RFC that would have allowed RFA candidates to discuss an IBAN during an RFA (to answer questions about it), and that didn't gain consensus, either. Finally, there was a recent appeal of an 18-month-old IBAN that had not been violated, and the appeal did not gain consensus because one party didn't agree to it. A subsequent village pump thread to put an expiration date on IBANs (not by me) was snow opposed. I assume links aren't necessary, but my point is: there is definitely enforcement of IBANs that is overzealous in my view but that appears to be supported by the community nevertheless (so I think Ritchie's risk of getting into trouble just for discussing the IBAN is non-trivial), and it appears the community doesn't want one-way IBANs lifted without the agreement of both parties (and Prax doesn't agree here). I don't know if the IBAN here should be lifted or not (I don't know the details of this case) but I think the concerns all around are reasonable. IBANs are a tricky problem in my view, and my sense is that the community takes them very seriously and enforces them very strictly. Levivich 16:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

Given the history of how the ban has been enforced I can fully understand why Ritchie is concerned about mentioning the ban at all in the UCOC discussions. Given that experienced editors in good standing have here expressed different views about whether it would or would not be a violation then this request seems all the more sensible. The adage that it's easier to seek forgiveness than permission very much does not hold true for Wikipedia editors with active sanctions.

I have my own issues regarding Prax (entirely off-topic here) and I know Ritchie from meetups (back when such things wouldn't kill us) so I'm not going to comment on the merits or otherwise or removing the ban. If it is not removed or loosened then it seems to me that Ritchie's primary desire could be facilitated by a clarification/amendment explicitly stating that they may comment about the IBAN and their experiences of it and its enforcement in discussions about dispute resolution processes, experiences, etc. as long as any references to Prax are avoided where possible and kept to the absolute minimum where it isn't. Thryduulf (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae: Clerk notes

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

• Notified Praxidicae per request above. My understanding is that leaving a required formal notice when appealing, such as {{Arbitration CA notice}}, is allowable as it is part of the appeal process. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I am recused on this matter. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Just as an initial thought: Richie's reasoning seems largely with wanting to be able to talk about the iban in UCoC discussions. To me that is simply not a compelling reason to even consider lifting it, and in the case of two-way ibans it is substantially more compelling if both users desire the ban being lifted. I have not totally made my mind up here but my first impression is to say no. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Andrew Davidson: The topic under discussion here is whether the interaction ban between these two editors should be retained. Please limit your remarks to that topic. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• I also do not see this as banning Richie from discussing the very existence of the ban. That can be done in UCoC discussions without mentioning or criticizing Prax. She has also stated she has no intention to run at RFA, ever, so that point is moot. That leaves only the CSD nominations. If it were still the bad old days where CSD noms regularly experienced massive backlogs I think I might see it differently, but times have changed for the better in that regard and I just don't one admins ability to reply to one other users nominations and substantially harming the project. And as I mentioned above, in the case of a two-way iban, it makes a rather large difference if the other party wants the ban lifted, and that's not the case here. I just don't see this going forward at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Ritche's response to Vermont set off alarm bells for me, notwithstanding the self-awareness in the response to SN54129. An IBAN is not a secret prohibition which can not itself be discussed. I can think of many ways to refer to this experience in UCOC discussion without running afoul of the terms of the ban. "I've seen editors assert administrators don't get sanctioned, but I am an administrator and am under an interaction ban after a disagreement rooted in wiki-philosophy got out of hand. The ban feels unnecessary and unfair to me, but I comply with it." Basically, I statements. You've pointed to NOTTHEM, which is largely the same idea. If an admin would block over comments like those, that's a problem as far as I'm concerned. Maybe I'm missing something. Is this about fear of over-zealous blocking admins, or a perceived need to speak in detail about Praxidicae in order to contribute to UCOC discussions? --BDD (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not inclined at this point to support any changes to the status quo. A lot of the statement points to some sort of a gentlemen's agreement to leave each other alone, but such an agreement would really need the consent of both parties, which does not currently exist. Maxim_(talk) 16:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• My thoughts align with Maxim's on this. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• I don't find a convincing reason in the statements above to lift the sanction. As BDD notes, the sanction can be discussed without violating the interaction ban. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• This particular interaction ban has been a little bugbear of mine since it was enacted, because the whole way it was enacted didn't seem right. It happened off-wiki, based on on-wiki evidence, we imposed an interaction ban, but did not hold a full case. Most importantly, I did not see a clear route of appeal. I have tried, unsuccessfully, to engage with both parties to find a workable outcome. Now, since we have a clear route of appeal - here, ARCA, on wiki - I feel far more happy about actually moving forward in a pragmatic manner.
  Looking at Ritchie's reasons for appealing, I agree with the other Arbitrators. There is little of substance that would require an appeal. Ritchie333. you may discuss the topic ban, and your feelings around it, which should be sufficient for the UCoC discussions. You may not discuss Praxidicae, her behaviours, or her actions. I am sorry that you feel that the encyclopedia is being harmed by your inability to work in certain areas, but unfortunately, that is a direct consequence of the history.
  It is clear that Praxidicae does not want this interaction ban removed, and since two-way interaction bans are sometimes needed - some individuals just don't get along - I'd need to see a very very good reason to lift over the objections of one party. Worm^TT(talk) 19:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Do any fellow arbs or Ritchie333 think that a motion or amendment like that described by Thryduulf would help? It sounds like we're in agreement that the IBAN shouldn't be construed as some sort of gag order that can't itself be mentioned in discussions. In that sense, the motion or amendment wouldn't actually change anything. Personally, I agree that repealing this sanction isn't on the table until both parties have some willingness for that to happen, just as I agree that Ritchie's possible inability to discuss the experience from his perspective is not to the benefit of the project (nor to any individual's benefit). --BDD (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  I'd support something like that to explicitly cover the situation that Ritchie can discuss the ban itself, but also to explicitly say that he may not discuss Praxidicae in such statements. However, I doubt I'm talented enough to create such a motion! Worm^TT(talk) 19:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  My feeling is that we have already clarified that this is not a gag order and he can discuss the ban itself, so a motion that doesn't change anything probably isn't necessary. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• The root of the ban was CSDs, which Prax and Ritchie seem to have fundamentally different views on, and they were unable to resolve their differences. Seeing as Prax wishes the ban kept, it does not appear that the parties will be magically getting along anytime soon. This reflects my view that sometimes it is okay that admins have sanctions against them if it solves a problem.
  Now, I understand that there is a desire to discuss the ban in the context of UCOC, and I am more than fine with that. I think it silly that, as BDD puts it, we have this informal "gag rule" around bans. Mentioning that one has a ban and diving into the consequences of it are hardly disrupting the encyclopedia. I don't know if we need a formal motion, I think it may be enough that we note such discussion is fine, and that should Ritchie or Prax get blocked for that, we would almost certainly overturn it. Though if someone wants to write something up I'd certainly consider it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Ritchie333:, I agree that it goes deeper than just CSD's, but seeing as Prax does not wish it lifted, I think the point is somewhat moot anyway. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Motion: Ritchie333 and Praxidicae

In the interest of furthering discussion around the UCOC, admin sanctions, and other such reforms, the interaction ban between Praxidicae and Ritchie333 is amended after the last sentence to add Parties may discuss the existence of the ban, and examine its implications, but remain forbidden from discussing each other and interacting with each other.

For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive and 4 who have abstained or recused, so 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	5
2–3	4
4–5	3

Enacted - Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As proposer. I think having a gag rule around IBans isn't really necessary. One can talk about the fact that they have a ban without talking about the other person. I think Ritchie is a useful case study in how admins may have sanctions on them, and he seems to have some desire to put that perspective to use. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
2. Worm^TT(talk) 18:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
3. I agree with Beebs that this was obvious to me, but it's clearly not treated as such, and thus worth explicitly stating. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
4. Given we're here....yes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
5. Primefac (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
6. I am also affirming my position that this should be a default assumption for interaction bans. —BDD (talk) 03:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

1. I think we're in agreement that this was already the case and this motion doesn't change anything. I therefore consider the matter to have already been clarified sufficiently without this motion, but I don't feel it so strongly that I'll oppose it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
2. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
3. – bradv🍁 16:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.