Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Noleander

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

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:

• {{admin|Ritchie333}} (initiator)
• {{user|Praxidicae}} - 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

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)

{{yo|Robert McClenon}} Regarding apologies, in June 2021, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&diff=prev&oldid=1030183021 I wrote] "{{xt| I apologised for doing so at the time, and can only apologise again.}}" I also consider "{{xt|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)

I'll give a cast iron reason none of this behaviour will happen again - my fiancee, soon to be wife, wouldn't be with me if I did it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

{{yo|Mz7}} I don't believe that's correct. I was blocked in October 2019 for rewriting an article without realising who had (correctly) tagged the original revision for WP:G12. The block was overturned on appeal. I don't know what the incident in 2021 is, but the only obvious thing I can think of is recreating an article without appreciating who had edited a previously deleted version. So I would say there are people who very much think these are sanctionable offences. However, in both these instances, the intent was to improve the encylopedia above anything else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333&diff=prev&oldid=921523897 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)

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)

Re. Prax's suggestion, this is the June 2021 discussion; [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_119#c-Serial_Number_54129-2021-06-25T11:10:00.000Z-Question_from_SN54129 mine] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_119#c-BDD-2021-06-25T15:48:00.000Z-Arbitration_motion_regarding_Ritchie333_and_Praxidicae:_Arbitrator_views_and_dis BDD]'s statements. —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

If Praxidicae feels uncomfortable about having the interaction ban rescinded, then I think it would be a mistake to rescind it. theleekycauldron states "In an ideal world, I wish we could wait a few more weeks for Prax to return to activity"—why is this not that ideal world? Why the rush here? Cabayi claims that this interaction ban is a "roadblock" that prevents Ritchie333 from acting in his admin role on pages that Praxidicae has edited, but that is not true: WP:IBAN states that {{tq|interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other}}. In his statement, Ritchie confirms that the status quo does not {{tq|affect my day-to-day editing or admin activities}}.

We are in no rush here. CaptainEek correctly points out that Praxidicae has been inactive on this project for much of the last few years due to things happening in real life, so we haven't really even "tested" this restriction that much yet. The restriction is not a roadblock, but rather a mechanism that allows an editor who experienced harassment to feel comfortable continuing to participate in this project. The way I see it, we risk losing a productive member of the community if the committee makes the wrong decision here. I see no harm to the project in leaving the restriction in place until such time that both parties involved feel comfortable with lifting it. Mz7 (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

The statement {{tqq|It's not good for the project that an admin going about their role should have roadblocks if the other has edited the page in question}}, aside from misstating how IBANs work, gives the impression of giving an admin special treatment. Either the IBAN is unnecessary, in which case it should be lifted but Ritchie's adminship is irrelevant; or it's necessary and incompatible with adminship, in which case Ritchie should be desysopped; or it's necessary and compatible with adminship, in which case Ritchie should remain an IBANned administrator. Citing Ritchie's adminship as a reason to lift the sanction shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between admins and the community, from an arbitrator who I two years ago wrote had a "notion of advanced tools as a right, rather than privilege".

This is not to say I particularly support or oppose lifting the sanction, just that if done it should be done for the right reasons. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Without opining on whether or not the iban should be lifted in this case, I'd like to point out that when I asked for my iban with Doncram to be lifted and he opposed, rather than rescinding the ban outright, it was {{oldid|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment|821673511#Doncram:_Motion|converted into a 6-month probation}}, after which it was lifted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree with the reasoning that an interaction ban is not working if, after a period of time, one of the editors involved still feels a need for it to be in place. There is no deadline for a volunteer to become comfortable with collaborating with another volunteer. isaacl (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the comment {{tq|Of course this matters; {{u|Praxidicae}} has addressed this in the last sentence of the initial statement.}}: Praxidicae stated the importance of holding an administrator to a higher standard, while Tamzin is objecting to using as an example that admin tasks may be hindered by an interaction ban. These arguments aren't in conflict. isaacl (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I would personally oppose any rescinding of this interaction ban. Regardless of how long ago this behaviour occurred, it is clear to see it has had a long-lasting effect on Praxidicae, psychologically speaking, to the extent that she does not want the IBAN lifted, and not only do I fully respect that - I can personally relate to her feelings. Being harassed and doxxed off-wiki should never just be seen as something which is part and parcel of being an editor here, and I cannot help but feel as though her feelings about this have been invalidated by the arguments that enough time has passed that this behaviour should not occur again. To put it bluntly: we simply cannot know that for certain.

I agree with Tamzin above on several points, namely that administrators are not "above" being issued IBANs, and my personal view on Ritchie's statement is that it reads as though he has suffered some real-life embarrassment at a Wiki meetup over being an administrator with an IBAN. That is not something which the Arbitration Committee is equipped to deal with, and is something Ritchie needs to come to terms with in his own time. I appreciate that mental health issues are something which can happen to all of us, and that we can change for the better as individuals, but for as long as Praxidicae still has concerns over the IBAN being lifted, it needs to stay put. We have a major issue with female editors being driven off this project due to harassment and doxxing - why on Earth we are even considering the risk of losing such a productive contributor, is simply baffling to me.

Finally, as for the IBAN causing a roadblock, I'll write this out as an analogy: If you harassed someone in real life, and they filed for a restraining order against you, you would need to accept that if they decide to enter your favourite pub one evening and they get there before you, you cannot go in there for your favourite beer or cocktail, no matter how much you really want to. Such is the very nature of an interaction ban that this will arise, and the solution to that is to focus on other matters. There is no shortage of jobs to do here on Wikipedia, and it's easy enough to find something new.

I've been debating whether or not to make a statement here. Then {{u|Patient Zero}} said pretty much exactly what I've been stewing over. I would like to endorse that entire statement, and in lieu of repeating what they wrote, I'll pose two questions.

1. Absent a good reason to lift an interaction ban early* + one of the two parties would prefer to keep it in place, why on earth would we consider lifting it?
2. What good does lifting it actually accomplish?

*"I should give it a go" is a reason, but not a good one.

On balance, it does feel unlikely that Ritchie would repeat the behavior that led to the interaction ban. And yet, that chance remains, and Ritchie has identified not one single place where the interaction ban is hindering their editing. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I've thought long and hard about commenting here, and didn't intend to until the motion below seems to be passing. I agree entirely with what Ed said above. There has been no reason provided why this interaction ban is hindering anything. Unless ArbCom thinks it was initially imposed improperly, it should not be removed just because time has passed - barring actual evidence that it is impacting the encyclopedia. ArbCom exists to further our goal of being an encyclopedia - not to just be a "supreme court" making decisions because it can. If one party of the interaction ban thinks it should remain, it seems that it would be significantly more harmful to remove (by potentially driving that editor off the project) than it would be to let it remain - again, absent any solid evidence that there is a negative impact to the encyclopedia by it remaining. The motion below appears to be passing and my statement is unlikely to change that - but the "status quo" is that both editors involved are still contributing to the encyclopedia - and if the result of this motion is one of them leaving, or even slightly reducing their contributions to the encyclopedia, then ArbCom has failed and should look back on this piss-poor request for revocation with shame. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

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.

: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: {{tq|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)

• 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 Worm^TT(talk) 15:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• I don't agree about {{tqq|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. {{ping|Ritchie333}} if you want to make a statement to ArbCom about the doxxing aspects, please email the committee. {{ping|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)
• The Committee is still discussing this request; sorry for the delay. Sdrqaz (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

{{ivmbox|1=The interaction bans between Ritchie333 and Praxidicae and their modifications are rescinded.}}

{{ACMajority|active=12 |abstain=1 |recused=2 |motion=yes}}

;Support

1. I have looked over the history from 2019 and 2021. In short, I support this being rescinded because I believe that this is unlikely to recur. The Committee has held this open for longer than usual to see if we would receive any further evidence of violations; given that that hasn't occurred, we should move forward on this issue on the merits. I agree with ToBeFree above: while Praxidicae's desire for the bans to stay in place did weigh heavily in my consideration of this, I am hopeful that people and circumstances can fundamentally change. This doesn't mean that I want either party to be poking the bear, but as rational adults both parties can move on from this affair. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
2. :To be honest, Ritchie's adminship did not play a part in my consideration of this appeal. Maybe it should have, as I agree that administrators are held to a higher standard, but for me the likelihood of issues occurring in the future was the more important consideration.{{pb}}Regarding {{tq|if you have to ask that the IBAN still be treated as it is essentially in force and for the editors to continue avoiding each other then why are we removing it?}}, I'll repeat what I said in private: this {{tq|is sensible advice for anyone who has just had a restriction removed. Anyone who has had an interaction ban removed should not immediately go poking the other party, and anyone who has just had a topic ban lifted should not create the most controversial article possible and get into fights with others. Just because that is sensible advice doesn't mean that we shouldn't remove the ban}}. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
3. The evidence here was a tough read. In an ideal world, I wish we could wait a few more weeks for Prax to return to activity to see if she has any evidence we've missed. Still, it doesn't seem like anyone's alleging any violations more recent than four years ago, and while I think both the violations and the responses to them left something to be desired, I feel on the balance that Ritchie's word is credible when he says the sanction is no longer necessary as a preventative measure. Part of having confidence in a sysop is being able to take them at their word – so I'm really hoping to not be disappointed on this one. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
4. :Since we're a bit split on this issue, I want to say that Ritchie's status as a sysop did factor into my decision, but not in the sense that {{tq|[i]t's not good for the project that an admin going about their role should have roadblocks if the other has edited the page in question.}} Admins are and should be bound by the same policies and guidelines as everyone else. But in deciding whether to restore a privilege to someone, on some level you have to trust them at their word when they say they won't abuse that. Sysops are expected to be true to their word and accurately assess their own limits. I have confidence in Ritchie continuing to be a sysop, and so I trust that he can do those things – if that trust is broken, than my confidence in Ritchie continuing to be an admin would be broken along with it. Given those stakes, I'd say that "maybe err on the side of caution" isn't bad advice, and it's a pretty common thing to say to people with newly given or restored privileges. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
5. It's not good for the project that a comment from one of them on an issue should necessarily preclude the other from commenting. It's not good for the project that an admin going about their role should have roadblocks if the other has edited the page in question. We have two highly valued editors who have had a falling out. If four years is not long enough for some scar tissue to have formed over the wound, then time is not the healer in this case, and prolonging the IBAN will serve no purpose. I'd recommend both to pretend for day-to-day purposes that the IBAN remains, but to not officiously refrain from normal activity just because the other has previously edited. Be civil. Be kind. Cabayi (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
6. After reviewing the original case, subsequent communications from various parties (both recent and not-so-recent) and subsequent evidence, I have landed here. There have been no recent events to make me believe that this IBAN is necessary at this time. If the IBAN is lifted, I still recommend that both parties refrain from interacting with each other whenever possible. Z1720 (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
7. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
8. This is a tough call either way. Ritchie's appeal here is not particularly compelling, and I share many of SFR's concerns regarding it. However, I'm simply not convinced that this sanction needs to remain in place, and as it's generally quite difficult to "prove a negative", I'm inclined towards lifting since the last problematic behavior occurred many years ago. Ritchie says he has changed, and I very much hope that is the case. To be clear, Ritchie's status as an admin was not weighed in my decision here. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. As I said above, 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!}⚓ 03:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
2. I find myself here for a few reasons. The biggest is that appeal itself isn't very good. It says {{tq|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.}} We have a sanction that protects a party from a situation that was significant enough that Arbcom had to step in and that isn't onerous to the parties. One party clearly would like the IBAN to remain in place, and the other party isn't bothered by it. If that were a two person discussion we'd call it consensus to keep the IBAN. There is also some general apology, but nothing specifically to or about the injured party, and I'm not very impressed with the "[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/25/sunday-review/aoc-daughters-ted-yoho.html I have a fiance]" defense. As a note to the arbs voting support, if you have to ask that the IBAN still be treated as it is essentially in force and for the editors to continue avoiding each other then why are we removing it? If Ritchie isn't even bothered by the IBAN, why are we worried about clearing their slate? I also think Tamzin makes a solid point that we shouldn't be treating this any different because Ritchie is an admin. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
3. :I would be more likely to vote for removing the ban if {{u|Ritchie333}} wasn't an admin. Of course this matters; {{u|Praxidicae}} has addressed this in the last sentence of the initial statement. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
4. I agree with ScottishFinnishRadish here. - Aoidh (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
5. Per ScottishFinnishRadish. Primefac (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

;Abstain

1. Daniel (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

• While there is some off-wiki evidence, the vast majority of evidence is on-wiki, which is why this has been proposed in public. A clear theme throughout the Committee's handling of the parties' relations is that complications ensue because the requests are off-wiki when the evidence is on-wiki. I don't think that we should continue that pattern. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• In my personal opinion, {{u|Praxidicae}} should have used different words than "This includes" as these may seem to imply that doxxing was part of behavior "from Ritchie", which, as far as I can see, is not the case. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• Regarding Sarek's suggestion, I am fine with a probation or suspended topic ban if it allays some concerns. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Initiated by NoonIcarus at 00:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

;Case or decision affected

:{{RFARlinks|Venezuelan politics}}

; Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. 4.3.3. Interaction ban

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

• {{userlinks|NoonIcarus}} (initiator)

; Information about amendment request

• 4.3.3. Interaction ban
• "The interaction ban between NoonIcarus and WMrapids is rescinded."

Kind regards. After an email exchange with the Arbitration Committee, I include the original request (almost) verbatim:

I hope this message finds you well. Over a year after the decision of the Venezuelan politics case, given that WMrapids are currently indefinitely banned, and that at any rate they remain topic banned from Venezuelan politics (the main reason of the dispute between both in the case), I kindly wanted to ask if it was possible to ask for an appeal of the current interaction ban.

From what I gather, an interaction ban goes as far as even mentioning the other user, which currently makes difficult to discuss the circumstances of the case, and I would like to ask a review for the community regarding my current own topic ban, particularly since I would like to contribute more in contests such as the Pride Month and this month's Women in Red event. Best wishes and many thanks in advance.

Re {{re|ScottishFinnishRadish}} It's the primary reason, yes. A rescission would also allow me to contribute in related articles, but I consider that less important than appealing the broader TBAN. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

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.

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

• {{u|NoonIcarus}}, is the primary reason you want the iban lifted to allow you to discuss it in an appeal of your topic ban? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)