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 Dreamy Jazz (talk | contribs) at 19:51, 3 July 2021 (→‎Motion: Ritchie333 and Praxidicae: enact). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Use of single and primary sources in Sri Lankan Civil War articles   29 April 2024 0/0/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
Mzajac (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) — Case suspended
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 Motion (orig. case) 24 May 2021
Amendment request: Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae Motion none 24 June 2021

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

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

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 4

Initiated by ProcrastinatingReader at 13:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions


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



Information about amendment request
  • Amend the section, replacing RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc. with RfCs, requested moves, noticeboard discussions, etc.


Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

In several ARBPIA RMs, most recently at Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis and Talk:Sheikh Jarrah property dispute, many non-500/30 editors have commented in RMs, unaware that the restriction applies to those discussions. ArbCom seemed to clarify (by majority, although not without dissent) in this ARCA that RMs are included in that provision, but didn't amend the actual remedy with their clarification. It's not particularly convenient for editors to have to link to and explain Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#Amendment_(December_2019) (an ARCA archive) every time a comment is struck and a non-500/30 user is confused by, or objects to, the striking. Requesting that the section be amended, as it was in this amendment, so that it's clearer for users, and so that Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement can be amended with the new wording as well.

I think it would also help if Template:Requested move/dated was amended to include a reminder of the restriction on ARBPIA4 pages. (edit: I've cooked up something for this part at Template_talk:Requested_move#Automatic_notice_of_restrictions_on_ARBPIA_pages)

@Barkeep49: The editors would still have to read through the ARCA just to pick out the addition of two words. Very few people should have to read the ARCAs at all; in that ARCA it probably would've been better to have formally passed a motion to amend with the changes, similar to what is proposed here. That way the result is preserved for easy access, and the templates can also be updated. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the ARCA doesn't offer guidance. I'm saying it's an inconvenience to expect editors to read it. For convenience sake, for a change like that, it's IMO better to just amend the remedy text. That way the information is in one place and available on the templates too. Plus it's shorter: the full ARCA is ~1,400 words long; the actual change is 2, and the entire remedy is 300. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever it's worth, re The first change makes no sense, since there is an exception that does allow editing within the area of conflict, i.e. by posting on the talk pages. My reading was that editing on talk pages is already caught within the provision, and then is exempted below. I'm not sure the alternate interpretation works; if editing on talk pages is already not part of the prohibition (are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict), then what would be the point of adding it to The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:? There'd be no need to exempt something that is already not prohibited. The wording of B(1) seems to support this interpretation, since it suggests the exemption doesn't apply to other namespaces (hence implying that the prohibition does already apply to non-article content). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: TBH I thought this would be an uncontroversial change of adding two words to the actual text and updating the templates to match, and that this would hopefully help with the issues. It's a simple question IMO: is it exempt or isn't it? If it is then I don't really understand how ArbCom could simultaneously agree that RMs are part of the exemptions, but be concerned about actually adding this into the list that already exists. And if the current ArbCom says isn't then that clarification would probably be appreciated. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by selfstudier

This happens frequently, non ec's even open Afd's in the topic area (Diff]. The problem is mainly although not exclusively with new editors that wander into the topic area without a clear idea of what's involved and don't really pay attention to the notices. I think it might continue to occur even if the notices and whatnot were all clarified, which they anyway should be. Maybe new editors need a very clear heads up about AP, IP and the rest.Selfstudier (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, an RM isn't much different to an RFC (and can be just as fraught) so if a non-ec can't participate in an RFC (they can't) then they should not be able to participate in an RM either. They can discuss it (or an RFC) on the talk page, sure, why not, just not formally participate or "vote".Selfstudier (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to confess that I find this situation baffling. There is a procedure that experienced editors understand, or thought they did, with a theoretical hole in it, namely RMs and I guess AfDs as well, because it says "etc". Instead of filling in the hole and making things easier to explain (to inexperienced editors) we seem instead to want to make the hole(s) official, to make the explanations even more complicated and to allow once more the easy access of socks to formal discussions. An AfD is certainly not an edit request and I think it is better to think of an RM as an RFC about the title of an article.Selfstudier (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I would want to say if it were as easy as that is something like "Non ec's cannot participate in formal discussions in IP area" where "formal discussions" means anything with a "vote", wherever it is.Selfstudier (talk) 10:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shrike

What is the difference between RFC and RM. Though both process are not decided by majority but by strength of arguments still if there are many proponents of certain view ussally it will be decided accordingly. The provision meant to disallow socks to influence on such process so there is no logic to allow it in AFD but not in RFC which both happen on talk page --Shrike (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To the opposers then please make a motion to allow AFD explicitly (though I still don' see any logic in allowing RFC but not AFD) Shrike (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

An RM is essentially just a type of RfC and there is no logic to having different rules about who can contribute to them. The previous ARCA agreed with this conclusion by a clear majority, and soon afterwards a clerk summarised the decision with a footnote at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles which says "In July 2020, the Arbitration Committee clarified that requested moves are "internal project discussions" for the purposes of this remedy." If the Committee wishes to add RM after RfC in the body of the remedy, fine, otherwise I don't see the case for any changes.

On the matter of advising editors of the rules, things are suboptimal. No ordinary editor should ever have to search ARCA. The solution is to keep Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles always up to date with all and only the current rules on display and all other stuff relegated to wikilinks.

To those who want to reverse the previous decision about RMs, you should know that RMs are frequently the most hotly debated issues on ARBPIA talk pages. What will happen if the restriction is lifted is that RMs will return to the Wild West where a lot of IPs and new accounts show up and !vote as a block. I'm confident that that is often the result of off-wiki canvassing. Although closers can choose to ignore some of the chaff, why should they have to? Non-ec people who want to comment can do so outside the boundaries of the formal RM. Zerotalk 01:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 182.1.15.37

Sorry. as an non-autoconfirmed user, i must have objectional argument about the amendment request. I think the previous ARCA agreed with this conclusion by a clear majority about, and a clerk summarised the decision with a footnote at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles which says "In July 2020, the Arbitration Committee clarified that requested moves are "internal project discussions" for the purposes of this remedy." I not involved in the motion but i recognized that it is more applicable. But for me, the decision is not enough. I also propose an amendment to the ARBIPA4 to includes a page move ban topic-wide for all contents related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In other words, any users, even EC users, cannot move any ARBIPA page or contents unless there is strong and reasonable consensus about it because all page moves initiative by EC users is too bad so only administrators can move any contents related to the Arab-Israeli page, which in other words, page move right by non-administrator for the topic is revoked. (Please read the concern on archival talk page). 182.1.13.41 (talk) 06:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RandomCanadian

I absolutely don't see any reason for the current discretionary sanctions page putting a clarification in a note. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc.Footnote: In July 2020, the Arbitration Committee clarified that requested moves are "internal project discussions" for the purposes of this remedy. needs to be changed. Either A) get rid of the {{refn}} and integrate it directly into the text: "This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, requested moves, noticeboard discussions, etc." (which if it weren't an ArbCom page I'd suggest somebody boldly change it) or B) remove the footnote (if for some odd reason RMs are not "internal project discussions"). Of course I'm for option A) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ZScarpia

Addressing the problem of widespread misuse of sockpuppet accounts was a major driver behind ARBPIA4, a major element of that misuse being to stack consensus-establishing discussions. In theory, consesus is supposed to be established by the quality of arguments; in practice, it often comes down to a vote in all but name. Sockpuppet accounts were being used to weigh the scales. The 500/30 rule was introduced to make life more difficult for sockmasters (though part of its effectiveness depends on the assiduous identification and blocking of sock accounts). If I remember correctly, the allowing of commenting on affected talkpages by non-EC editors was a later concession. I think that the opening up of any process which depends on the establishment of consensus, including RMs, should be given very careful thought. In terms of explaining to non-EC editors why their comments have been struck from consensus-establishing discussions, I'm puzzled why just suppying a link to the ARBPIA General Sanction and pointing out the 500/30 restriction wouldn't, in most cases, be sufficient.     ←   ZScarpia   11:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

<@Bradv:> With regard to what constitutes content, see the ARBPIA4 definition of the "area of conflict", which, at least to me, seems to imply that "content" includes more than what is contained in articles themselves:

b. edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")

A discussion of the wording to adopt was carried out during the ARBPIA workshop stage here, with the wording proposed by @AGK: being adopted.

    ←   ZScarpia   14:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Palestine-Israel articles 4: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles 4: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I'm not opposed to what's being proposed by why not create a wiki-shortcut to make it easier to link to editors when needing to explain? More broadly I think this should be part of an effort to better memorialize ARCAs on case pages which I know is something that has had some arb/clerk discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    PR: I disagree with the idea that, short of a formal motion, ArbCom cannot offer guidance. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that we aren't required to offer guidance via motion, but I also believe it can be prudent to choose a motion over simple statements at ARCA, especially when an issue is likely to recur and may be confusing. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What are the advantages of changing the motion as opposed to just linking people to the footnote? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barkeep49: I'm glad that footnote exists. I completely forgot about it, which says something about how hard it is to find because I wrote that footnote when I was a clerk. Anyway, I still prefer the explicit clarification in the motion but am happy to decline the amendment request. See #Straw poll: Closing the amendment request without action below. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In the interests of not having this sit for months, are people generally inclined to want to pass a motion, in which case it would make sense to put effort towards finding one that has support, or are people inclined to want to close this request in some other way (my preference)? Barkeep49 (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced it would actually have the desired affect, but I don't really see a downside either, so my feeling at this time is to support this change. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Beeblebrox. I share his skepticism—might it make sense to have a tweaked notice specifically for RMs and similar discussions? I can quite easily imagine a newer editor skimming the notice and assuming it only applies in article space. --BDD (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not seen anything so far to change my mind from the last discussion. Why should non-EC editors be allowed to discuss everything but the title of the article? That makes no sense. I can agree with clearly internal discussions as currently worded but move discussions are clearly content discussions and should imho be governed by the same rules as any other editing of the article. Regards SoWhy 18:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like re-litigating the 2019 amendment is a different discussion than the one we're having. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The 2019 amendment explicitly has an exception that allows non-EC editors to "use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area". I just think that comments and edit requests related to articles includes the title of the article because the exception does not talk about "the body of the article" or anything like that. So it's not a question of re-litigating but of interpreting that amendment. My interpretation is that unless this has explicitly been excluded (which it hasn't), article names are part of the exception that non-EC editors have. The request here is to add requested move discussions to the remedy, which would imho constitute a change and not just a clarification. Regards SoWhy 19:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    On the other hand, why should non-EC editors be able to comment in RMs but not RfCs? Do we have any idea whether the arbs at the time considered RMs to be part of the "etc."? --BDD (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still leaning towards opposition, but I do have a question: why are we even debating this? The motion below reads as more of a clarification (which seems unnecessary and potentially convoluted) instead of any sort of "overturning" or "rewriting" of the existing language, but if the last time this was looked at RMs were considered "internal processes" and thus included in the exceptions (to the exceptions) we're just wasting our time.Primefac (talk) 10:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Palestine-Israel articles 4

In order to codify previous clarifications and make technical improvements, Remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case ("ARBPIA General Sanctions") is amended:

  • In paragraph "B", by replacing "editing content within the area of conflict" with "editing within the area of conflict";
  • In paragraph "B", by replacing "other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc." with "other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, requested move discussions, etc."; and
  • In paragraph "C", by replacing "edits made to content within the area of conflict" with "edits made within the area of conflict".
For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
  1. Proposed. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to oppose#1: The permission to edit talk pages is an exception to a general rule prohibiting editing anything related to PIA (content or non-content). That's why it's given as one of the "sole exceptions". As currently written, if you really read "content" as "mainspace content", then non-EC editors already have permission to edit talk pages, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc., even without the exception, because they're only prohibited from editing mainspace content. That's clearly not the intent, and that's why the first bullet point is a useful change and in line with how we already apply this remedy. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't really understand the opposes. However we sort out the details, the remedy amounts to a general rule plus some enumerated exceptions. The only substantial change is clarifying that RMs are not among the exceptions—and arguably, that's not a substantial change, given the December 2019 ARCA. --BDD (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems unlikely to come up, but clerks, please consider this my second choice now. --BDD (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. The first change makes no sense, since there is an exception that does allow editing within the area of conflict, i.e. by posting on the talk pages. So changing it from "editing content" to "editing" is kind of misleading. As for the second change, I have already indicated that I do not think adding requested move discussions to be a clarification but a change of the nature of the remedy and I do oppose it. Closing editors might take into account that an account is not-EC when judging the outcome of a RM discussion but like all other discussions of an article's content, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with allowing these editors to make constructive comments in such a discussion. The third change is okay but imho not necessary. Regards SoWhy 10:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I generally agree with SoWhy, particularly on the first point. I'm not entirely convinced of the logic behind banning non-ECP users from the articles but not the talkpages, but that perhaps may be a discussion for another time. Maxim(talk) 13:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I find myself in opposition to this motion mostly because it would set up a contradictory set of instructions. The first part of 5.b.1 is Editors who are not eligible ... 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. (emphasis added). Later it is clarified that This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions..., which to me means anything not on the talk page (e.g. WP-space, primarily). An RM is a form of edit request (though one that requires consensus) that falls within the first part of 5.b.1 and not in the second. Primefac (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC) Shifted to abstain. Primefac (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is a silly technicality. "Internal project discussions" already means RMs. Wikipedia generally avoids the sort of enumerated lists because as we all know, lists are inherently incomplete. Thus we write a general principle. With regards to removing "content", it just feels like semantics to me. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. I'm not sure where I fall on this one any more, following more discussion and points. If the only clarification is to codify specifically that RMs are internal project matters, which was clearly already defined (but hidden in a ref, etc) then it should be a trivial matter to move "and move requests" out of the ref (i.e. the second bullet point being proposed) and really not even need a motion this complex. I'm also finding issue with points 1 and 3, but I cannot figure out exactly what it is at the moment that is bugging me so I will think on it a while and abstain in the meantime. Primefac (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
I intend to propose the above motion if there are no concerns about the wording. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per my previous comments on this topic, can we also change the word "content" in paragraph B to "pages"? – bradv🍁 19:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bradv: How about we make these changes? "All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict." and "Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict." The term "related content" is defined in Remedy 4 as including "all namespaces with the exception of userspace", but "content" itself is not. (sigh) Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've made this change to the draft motion. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now proposed the motion for voting. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Primefac: especially, but also a general comment: I think the "contradictory set of instructions" ship has sailed. RfCs are explicitly not an exception—so is an RfC on the talk page a trap for non-EC editors? I'd much prefer straightforward guidelines. Maybe that means something like declaring all talk page discussions fair game. --BDD (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If we were to clarify anything, I think it should be RfCs not on a specific Talk: page are verboten, because as stated my interpretation of "other internal project discussions" means pages not in that namespace. Whether intentional or not, we shouldn't have rules so complex that on a single page #X discussion okay but #Y is not. Primefac (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original motion is too confusing, and this amendment probably doesn't do enough to fix it. The undefined terms such as "content" are problematic, as is the nested exception in paragraph B. If we can agree on what it was trying to say in the first place, perhaps we can find a better way to phrase it. – bradv🍁 00:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A somewhat rambling clarification of my vote follows. We're really nitpicking here when I think we should examine the broader "why". The reason we don't allow non-ECP in internal project areas is because we tend to get new to moderately new accounts that are here to POV push and disrupt. We've all been in discussions where a handful of users can cause a great deal of disruption. Especially something like an RM is going to be controversial, and thus on the principle, RM's, as an internal project discussion, should be ECP only. I oppose the wording as written because I think it adds needless bureaucracy. I fear that the longer ArbCom exists, the more folks will want our rulings to read like laws, with increasingly long enumerations, jargon, legalese, and ultra-precise wording. I think that is not useful for the somewhat loosey-goosey style of Wikipedia, and saps energy and independence from our hardworking AE admins. So bottom line: RM's are internal project discussions, but we shouldn't need to have to say that. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Palestine-Israel articles 4 (2)

The phrase "other internal project discussions", as used in Remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case ("ARBPIA General Sanctions"), shall be construed to include requested moves.

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
  1. Trying a different tact here: I think we lack a consensus on whether RM's are in fact part of the 500/30 restrictions, so this is in the interest of seeing where we stand solely on RM's. Baby's first motion so go ahead and tweak it if necessary :) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as status quo, as established in the July 2020 ARCA. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as first choice. This provides clarity without getting into side issues like the definition of "content". Thanks, Eek! --BDD (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. As I said last time - Requested Move is shorthand for "Request for Comment about a Move". This motion explicitly clarifies that, which I thought we'd already clarified. WormTT(talk) 08:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose per above. I still think the name of an article falls under "content", not "internal project related stuff". Regards SoWhy 16:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Discussion

Straw poll: Closing the amendment request without action

This amendment request is closed without action.

Support
  1. Proposing this in the interest of not letting this ARCA sit here for months. If the status quo (the July 2020 clarification not in the text of the remedy but listed in the index footnote) is acceptable, then let's close this. If not, and the current motion isn't good, I would recommend proposing a different motion. Clerks: this isn't a formal motion and shouldn't be formally "enacted" if it hits a majority; it's just here to signal if arbs support closing this. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Barkeep49 (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Maxim(talk) 13:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SoWhy 18:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I appreciate the lighting of a fire under us here, but we really need to either codify the December 2019 ARCA or repeal (and possibly replace) it. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think the remedy needs to be rewritten. The poorly-defined terminology together with the nested exceptions make it confusing. On the substance of this ARCA, we still don't agree on whether non-extended confirmed editors can participate in requested move discussions according to the existing wording. – bradv🍁 23:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Unfortunately, we need to do something here. It keeps coming back. WormTT(talk) 08:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae

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

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


Information about amendment request
  • 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).

Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • 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)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • My thoughts align with Maxim's on this. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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. WormTT(talk) 19:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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! WormTT(talk) 19:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]

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 4 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 19:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  2. WormTT(talk) 18:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  4. Given we're here....yes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  2. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. – bradv🍁 16:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=1031811381"