Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae | Motion | none | 20 May 2025 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Use this page 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).
Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)
- Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
- Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
- Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
- Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
- If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use
{{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}}to do this. - Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
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.
Guidance on participation and word limits
Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
- Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
- In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
- Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
- Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l
lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
- Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
- Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
- Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using
~~~~). - Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
- Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget and this report may also be helpful.
- Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.
General guidance
- Arbitrators and 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.
- 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:
Amendment request: Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae
[edit]Initiated by Ritchie333 at 13:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 12#Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- 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) - Special:Diff/1291323835
- 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.
- Remove restriction
Statement by Ritchie333
[edit]I recently attended the London Meetup and mentioned I still had an existing Arbitration Committee enforced interaction ban, which surprised everyone. I then said I wasn't bothered about appealing the ban, as it didn't affect my day-to-day editing or admin activities, but was suggested by a few people there that I should give it a go.
During mid-2019 I hit a low point of my life, lashed out at people for no good reason and behaved like a completely obnoxious jerk, and this was a prime consequence of it. I've since sorted myself out and changed my views on civility - in particular that admins must be held to a higher code of conduct and set a good example at all times - and just wonder if this could be recognised, leading to the interaction ban closed as obsolete from a time gone past. Anyway, I'll leave this to you for your thoughts.
NB: In full compliance with an interaction ban, I have not notified the other party; if somebody else could do this, it would be appreciated. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Regarding apologies, in June 2021, I wrote " I apologised for doing so at the time, and can only apologise again." I also consider "behaved like a completely obnoxious jerk" to imply regret and apology for behaviour in 2019. If this insufficient, it would be helpful to clarify what else I should do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Praxidicae
[edit]I’ll keep this as direct as possible since I am unsure what I can actually say:
I do not believe the behavior that led to this restriction has changed, nor do I believe the harassment I experienced from Ritchie is unlikely to happen again. This includes being doxxed off-wiki after the IBAN was imposed and for a good year or two after, as well as repeated violations of that restriction, many of which resulted in little more than symbolic gestures that I cannot even call a reprimand, followed by sympathy and support from the very individuals responsible for enforcing it, which I will give Ritchie credit for - that is not his fault.
There is no reason for this restriction to be lifted on either side. I do not view this as a sincere request stemming from a change in behavior on or off-wiki, but a superficial gesture. As Ritchie has more or less acknowledged, if there's no intent to repeat the behavior, then the restriction shouldn’t matter.
There is absolutely no need for Ritchie and me to interact, or to edit within the same topic areas and thus no need for it to be removed.
What stands out most is the complete lack of apology or acknowledgment of the extensive harassment I endured, only justifications tied to personal hardships. And since personal lives are apparently relevant: I’ve had a long-term relationship end, lost several family members, gotten married, had a child, and nearly lost that child twice when he was just 14 months old. Not once did I use Wikipedia or another editor as an emotional outlet to stalk, harass, or violate a restriction, let alone repeatedly. And I’m a regular editor, not an administrator—who should absolutely be held to a higher standard. COOLIDICAE🕶 16:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- I have extremely limited ability to meaningfully reply to this - as in, no access to my computer for the next few weeks. To whomever asked for the information I referred to in my initial statement, arbcom, over the course of I believe now 3 different committees has access to my previous emails regarding this, as well as others (which I do not myself know the content of said emails, referred to here and further in the same thread. ) Arbcom, I would assume has access to archives, it would've been in the same time frame in October-ish 2021 and shortly after the first iban violation in 2019. I have no interest in being harangued and stalked again, so I have nothing further to say on this matter other than reiterating my initial point that it was Herculean feat to have this enacted to begin with and it was already loosely followed and enforced, at best and I have no desire whatsoever to go back to being subject to the harassment that resulted in this to begin with.
- Further, I see the same exact type of response (X was happening in my life, which caused me to do y)that was given in 2021 for an appeal, but absolutely nothing indicating that it won't continue to happen, nor a need for it to be removed. It doesn't prevent Ritchie or myself from actually improving the project, as I've already pointed out. Sorry for any errors, responding on mobile sucks. Also I would encourage others to read the previous attempt from June 2021(ish), particularly the comments by SN and I believe it was BDD. COOLIDICAE🕶 18:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- And in addition to this I am having emergency surgery tomorrow morning so if my statement isn't enough and needs further clarification, Arbcom has access to the previous emails and correspondence, there isn't much else I can provide nor am I going to put in the effort to relitigate this ever again, including now. COOLIDICAE🕶 18:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Robert McClenon (Ritchie333 and Praxidicae)
[edit]I have no knowledge of the history between these two editors except what they have described here. It appears that the history is largely confidential material which should not be on public web pages, so that I will not and should not have knowledge of the history. However, in looking at what is seen here, I see one blatant defect in Ritchie's filing, that Praxidicae has also noted. I see what can be favorably described as Ritchie's explanation, or less favorably described as Ritchie's excuses. I see nothing that expresses regret over the hardship that he inflicted on Praxidicae or that amounts even to a non-apology.
As a non-administrator, the "optics" of this appeal, from an administrator to a committee all of whom are administrators, is bad. It looks like an administrator asking ArbCom to circle the wagons around an administrator who has admitted to sub-optimal behavior without taking responsibility for their sub-optimal responsibility.
I observe that 48 hours have elapsed since Praxidicae noted the absence of any expression of regret or apology, during which Ritchie could have responded.
Wikipedia editors, including Wikipedia administrators, are moral actors and should acknowledge agency and responsibility for their actions. I don't see that.
The ArbCom has the confidential record and knows what the details were. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
[edit]Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae: Clerk notes
[edit]- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- Noting that there was an amendment request in July 2021, which resulted in a motion adding the following exception to the interaction ban:
Parties may discuss the existence of the ban, and examine its implications, but remain forbidden from discussing each other and interacting with each other.
HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae: Arbitrator views and discussion
[edit]- I've notified Prax. No opinion yet as I have to review the history, but I'm generally in favor of releasing five year old restrictions if there's no compelling reason to believe the behavior will resume. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Recuse WormTT(talk) 15:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- I don't agree about
if there's no intent to repeat the behavior, then the restriction shouldn’t matter
; this would make partial blocks, topic bans and interaction bans impossible to appeal for those the restriction is the most unnecessary for. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC) - Recuse. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sensitive to Ritchie's concerns; it doesn't feel nice to be carrying a sanction around. But I'm inclined to listen to Prax here. I'll also point out that she hasn't edited much in the last three years, and is just now starting to get back into editing, which means that the sanction hasn't actually been tested for a full five years. Given that at the last violation (in 2021) we had a serious conversation about desysopping Ritchie, I think it doesn't hurt to keep this around longer. I don't think we should keep it forever though; if I'm still around in a few years I'd be more receptive to lifting it then. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- Doxxing might be part of this appeal, but I think evidence on that aspect should be presented privately to ArbCom to prevent WP:OUTING. @Ritchie333: if you want to make a statement to ArbCom about the doxxing aspects, please email the committee. @Praxidicae: your statement says, "This includes being doxxed off-wiki after the IBAN was imposed and for a good year or two after." If you would like to expand upon this, please email the committee with details of the doxxing that took place after the IBAN was imposed, and any other statement related to doxxing you would like ArbCom to have. If other editors would like to submit evidence in this appeal related to doxxing, please email ArbCom. Z1720 (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- There's a fair bit of background to this that I'd like to review before commenting further. - Aoidh (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)