MyWiki:Arbitration/Requests/Case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes

Lua error: bad argument #1 to 'find' (string expected, got nil).

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Pbsouthwood (t) (ev / t) (pd / t)
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted

Lua error: bad argument #1 to 'find' (string expected, got nil).

Motion name Date posted

Lua error: bad argument #1 to 'find' (string expected, got nil).

Requests for arbitration

{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header|width=auto}}

SchroCat

Initiated by Robert McClenon (talk) at 08:03, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Proposed parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]


Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Robert McClenon

A thread has been open at WP:ANI since 7 March 2026 concerning User:SchroCat, and seems to be going nowhere, that is, not reaching a consensus. The editor in question has a history of bringing articles to Featured Article status, and also has a history of defending these articles against subsequent edits. Their defense of these articles is viewed by other editors as article ownership, and is often characterized by incivility and by insults that are seen as personal attacks.

The WP:ANI thread has resulted in four proposed sanctions, the first being a 1RR restriction against edit-warring, the second being a form of probation, the third being a form of mentorship, and the fourth being a ban. It is not easy to count support and opposition, because discussion of sanctions began informally so that some of the votes were not bolded. By my count, which I do not consider accurate, at about 1800 GMT, 21 March 2026, there were 7 votes for 1RR and 12 votes against 1RR, and 12 votes for probation and 11 votes against probation. There were 2 votes for a ban, and 1 vote for mentorship. The votes for and against probation look like a textbook example of no consensus, and the scattering of votes on other remedies look like there is no consensus. The mandate of ArbCom is to resolve disputes that the community cannot resolve. The dispute over this editor appears to be a dispute that the community cannot resolve, and some users have made statements to that effect.

There is an essay, written in 2011, that is questionably named Unblockables. It is about users who are blocked but don't stay blocked, either because their blocks are lifted by other administrators, or because all of their blocks are short. (The essay says that they are frequently blocked and unblocked.) The essay was and is about editors who are esteemed by some other editors as article content creators, and who don't learn to be civil from repeated short blocks. SchroCat is such an editor, who is frequently subject to short blocks for incivility. Sometimes the community is divided by contentious topics, but sometimes the community is divided by contentious editors.

I am aware that ArbCom cases usually involve topic areas or processes, but I think that occasionally ArbCom should consider cases involving a contentious editor, and this is such a case. I am not asking ArbCom to review the Featured Article process or any other topic area or process. Maybe ArbCom can craft an appropriate remedy to ensure that this editor remains a net positive to the community.

Wikipedia has a policy that blocks are preventive and not punitive. Civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. There is a tension between those two principles with regard to editors who don't learn from their blocks and so continue to be or resume being uncivil.

Unfortunately, this is a dispute that divides the community, and the community cannot resolve it, and ArbCom should open a case. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:03, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by SchroCat

  • Placeholder; I'll respond tomorrow. - SchroCat (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
  • (I'm not sure why FIM is being considered as a party: does an extremely minor kerfuffle at ANI now end at ArbCom? Seems like overkill to something that was stopped by thread hatting). - SchroCat (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Have I been uncivil on occasion? Yes, certainly. Have I been triggered into rash language and over reaction? Yes, certainly. Do I have any real defence for my occasional lapses of temper? None that I am willing to disclose.

I am well aware of my shortcomings and have been working on trying to overcome them. (For example, I have been successful in avoiding dropping into uncivil behaviour around infoboxes for a while and try to limit myself to a couple of comments at most, none uncivil – @ScottishFinnishRadish and Izno: you should note this before trying to add IBs to the case).

I obviously still have a lot of work to do in this respect and I offer my apologies to anyone who feels that I have slighted them with my approach.

@Aoidh, HouseBlaster, and Guerillero:, Many thanks for pausing the process to allow a response. I won't hold this up, so feel free to remove your declines if you wish. - SchroCat (talk) 08:49, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Szmenderowiecki

Robert McClenon, I understand where you are coming from but I think one ANI discussion is not enough for a full case. I think there has to be several elements weighed:

  • If the comments were made in bad faith
  • If it is likely or clear that the abrasive editing style has dissuaded others from contributing, or made others seriously consider withdrawing, even if the comments were otherwise well-intended
  • If it's indeed a pattern and not a specific article

There may be some arbs who are familiar with SchroCat but if they are not, IMHO it's best to present all the evidence of alleged misconduct upfront. It's in the interest of people unaware of the story behind this filing, but also allows SchroCat to address the allegations if they so choose. Maybe not exactly due process but at least common decency.

(If there's so much of bad stuff, just show the most clear-cut cases that, in RL terms, would give probable cause to dig much deeper).

Without a demonstrated a pattern of bad behaviour and a pattern of cover-ups or questionable interventions to avoid/overturn sanctions, I don't think ArbCom should intervene. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 09:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Re ToBeFree, the block log alone is indeed pretty troubling, including (admittedly a quite old incident of) sockpuppetry.
This still does not invalidate my point that if somebody goes in full escalation mode (and it is hardly possible to escalate this case any higher), and essentially claims that "this actor is horrible and the community won't do anything about them", they ought to make an effort and present such a case that makes it very clear where the problem lies.
I don't expect to be a fully impartial summary. But, if I were an arb, I would expect the filer to convince me that I need to get my ass up to investigate. The way OP wrote their statement may be easily read as "I don't like how this particular ANI discussion is playing out, Im'ma appeal this outcome to ArbCom, and also SchroCat is an unblockable so let's change it", which is not exactly what ArbCom is for.
@ArbCom Clerks: On Robert McClenon's behalf, I'd ask ArbCom to extend his filing to 1,000 words, but only for the purpose of presenting his case for pursuing sanctions. If he doesn't have anything more to add or doesn't want to present one, I'd urge someone else to pick up the argument for him or else let's drop the case. Additionally, if I'm over the limit, I'd request a 100-word extension for my brief evaluation of presented evidence of misconduct, if it appears. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 14:34, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
@Szmenderowiecki: We don't generally grant word extensions to commenters based on what someone else wants them to write. If Robert McClenon has more to say, though, he's free to request a word extension. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:56, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by ToBeFree

The amount of "I don't think ArbCom should intervene" comments may become proportional to the actual need for ArbCom to intervene in cases of unblockable editors. When I look at a block log and see this, including a 48-hour block that comes with multiple apologies and "extreme regret",(1) I automatically get a feeling there's something to do 14 administrators didn't manage to do. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
(1): Yes, that admin turned out to be a sockpuppet. Not sure if that invalidates the point.

HJ Mitchell, Speaking as a community member who has worked on articles with SchroCat is exactly the problem here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Dronebogus

I support this request and implore arbcom to seriously consider taking it up after the community discussion at ANI ends, regardless of the outcome there. A weak community probation (not even sanction) will not be sufficient even if it passes. --Dronebogus (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I cite SchroCat’s block log as evidence: roughly a block a year. More than enough evidence of a long-ranging intractable problem. Dronebogus (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
My most recent encounter with them also comes to mind: Talk:Senghenydd colliery disaster/Archive 1#h-Edit reversion-20251014091900. A very long, pointless fight over an exceedingly minor wording change. Many users would simply not care, and if they did they would at least be reasonable and polite about their disagreement. This is symptomatic of the user’s inability to compromise or show basic civility. Dronebogus (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Talk:Siege of Sidney Street#Article infobox also shows an unacceptably hostile attitude towards a much newer good-faith contributor. It also demonstrates the problematic behavior of his supporters in backing up this WP:BITEy misbehavior. The ANI thread also shows plenty of examples of similar behavior cited by many other users. Dronebogus (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
@Izno: What if I don’t want to be a party? Dronebogus (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
To arbs debating scope: I think this should be about SchroCat and SchroCat alone before it goes six degrees of Kevin Bacon out into like 15 other users. Dronebogus (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
To arbs and everyone else in general, incl. SchroCat (if you’re watching this) and @HJ Mitchell: I am sorry if my tone and rhetoric have been out of line for what is expected at ArbCom. I understand exemplary behavior is expected and my behavior here has not been that. As my section is getting rather long I will stop adding further remarks unless I can think of additional evidence. Dronebogus (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
I'm not sure why FIM is being considered as a party: does an extremely minor kerfuffle at ANI now end at ArbCom I can’t believe I’m saying this but I 100% agree with SchroCat. (Sorry breaking my promise to stop) Dronebogus (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Harry Mitchell

Speaking as a community member who has worked on articles with SchroCat, @ArbCom Clerks: , I believe Dronebogus's comment above, which is devoid of diffs, is a personal attack and is made in advancement of a grudge that Dronebogus has been harbouring against SchroCat for some months (see User talk:Dronebogus#Wikihounding, User talk:Dronebogus#June 2025, and User talk:Dronebogus#Friendly advice). I believe they should, at the bare minimum, be instructed to strike everything after the first sentence, and possibly sanctioned. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:48, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopaedia so I see no problem with working on articles with other community members. I've recused from hearing the case request because of my working relationship with SchroCat. @Theleekycauldron: I must protest that Dronebogus's hands are not clean and their personal attack should not be allowed to remain with a vague wave at a block log. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:12, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell: Is there something I didn't address? I removed the second sentence of the initial comment, and I don't see the first and third as personal attacks. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:18, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
My apologies, I overlooked the removal. That does mostly resolve my concerns. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:32, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

S Marshall

Is it possible for an editor to be so provoked that a modicum of incivility on their part could be overlooked? I think that's the defining question for this case.

Arbcom should take the case, because the community can't deal with this, but please be mindful of the need to keep the sanctions proportionate and take account of the mitigating factors.

SchroCat is definitely apt to be testy. He's attracted some "fans" whose behaviour might not amount to actual incivility, but I which hope Arbcom will reflect on.—S Marshall T/C 17:20, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Some describe SchroCat as an "unblockable". Others make much of the length of his block log. Which?
Q: Do old blocks "expire", in the Wikipedia community? I think they should. Blocks that expired more than about 5 years ago ought to be inadmissible as evidence except in extraordinary circumstances. Blocks by Lourdes also ought to be inadmissible.—S Marshall T/C 08:14, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite

I'm not seeing a long-term intractable problem that the community is incapable of solving. As for the block log, I see I block by a discredited sock account followed by two edit-warring blocks in the last five years. That is hardly the definition of a chronic problem. Apparently the mavens of AN/I get upset if every incident isn't resolved with a bonfire or freedom absolution. Sometimes results are neither; if there's a further incident, that will add to the pile of firewood. The closing administrator at ANI regrets this Arbcom case request being made before a potential solution could be tried, which again belies the assertion that this is an intractable situation. — tim ///// Carrite (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay

I would need to see a continous form of vandalism on main space & talk space, for me to recommend an editor be brought to Arbcom. AFAIK, SchroCat hasn't indulged in vandalism. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Nemov

A lot has occurred to reach this point, and wading through it is no enviable task for the arbitrators. I first raised an WP:ANI regarding SchroCat three years ago after encountering them in several RfCs. At the time, the editor was retired, and the discussion closed with the closer stating, SchroCat is encouraged to take note of the community's decreasing tolerance for this conduct, though some who opposed sanction felt that there was insufficient recent evidence of misconduct to justify a community ban. In the most recent ANI, SchroCat has acknowledged a failure to remain civil. Despite this admission, and the broader history of conduct concerns, a significant number of editors continue to oppose taking action. They may be correct; however, the community appears deadlocked on how to proceed with a productive contributor whose civility falls short of the project's expectations. That said, I would also recommend Fortuna imperatrix mundi and Dronebogus as party to this after the conduct at the ANI that led to this request. Nemov (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by LEvalyn

I have attempted to gather ANI threads with civility concerns about SchroCat. I disregarded threads before 2020 as possibly-stale, and I did not examine reports at 3RR; SchroCat has 197 hits in the AN archives and I had to focus my efforts.

  • November 2021, ภץאคгöร reports SchroCat-as-IP-editor, archived without action.
  • January 2022 No Great Shaker reports SchroCat-as-IP-editor, archived without action.
  • December 2022, Nemov reports SchroCat-as-IP-editor. 25 editors supported a ban and 29 opposed it, with many opposes saying that SchroCat's return to his account was sufficient. I would personally highlight a comment from Nil Einne, who opposed a cban: SchroCat's behaviour has been problematic and unfortunately their comments make it unclear it's likely to improve. However it's borderline enough that I'm willing to give them one last chance when combined with the fact they can no longer escape the scrunity every regular editor is under by editing from frequently changing IPs.
  • June 2023 Personman reports SchroCat, archived without action.
  • July 2023, Morbidthoughts reports SchroCat, closed with page protection and an individual admin 48hr block of SchroCat.
  • October 2023 Dronebogus reports SchroCat, closed as Neither party has covered themselves with glory in interacting with the other, so how about we stop this before you goad each other into doing something actually sanctionable?
  • March 2024 Erzan reports SchroCat, closed without action.
  • August 2024, Tvx1 reports SchroCat, closed without action.
  • October 2024, SchroCat's report of Diddy's Diabolical gets derailed by a debate with Nil Enne about identifying vandalism.
  • July 2025, InvadingInvader reports Ssilvers and Dronebogus, leads to debates between Dronebogus and SchroCat about infoboxes, closed with no action and the statement all involved users should take into consideration that the wider Wikipedia community has grown tired of their bickering.
  • September 2025, FaviFake reports SchroCat. A close by Fortuna imperatrix mundi is reversed; archived without action.
  • October 2025, Dronebogus reports SchroCat and Tim riley, closed without action.
  • January 2026, Becsh reports Tim riley and SchroCat. After 10 supports and 11 opposes, the proposal to warn SchroCat was closed with There is no consensus to issue a formal warning. I advise SchroCat to carefully read the comments here and strive to address their colleagues' concerns. After 3 supports and 6 opposes, the proposed ban on SchroCat was withdrawn by Dronebogus. After 3 supports and 8 opposes, the proposed iban between SchroCat and Dronebogus was closed as consensus against imposing an interaction ban.
  • March 2026 closed with clear consensus that SchroCat has acted with incivility and this ArbCom case.

In my personal assessment, I do see persistent incivility. As I said in the most recent ANI thread: Civility is one of our pillars. It defines who we are. We must do something. It does not seem that existing processes have been able to determine what. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Toadspike

Unless SchroCat is able to demonstrate significant contrition and a willingness to change his behavior going forward, I encourage the Committee to take this case. Editors continually arguing for leniency on the basis of his extensive contributions (example) shows that the community is unable to enforce its behavioral policies on SchroCat. I thank LEvalyn for compiling the list of ANI threads; I was compiling a similar list, but have instead drawn up a narrower list of SchroCat's sanctions at WP:AN3. Both show very similar behavior that has continued for over a decade. The main theme seems to be ownership, which begets personal attacks and edit warring – all three were raised repeatedly at AN3. SchroCat's block log shows seven blocks for edit warring, two of which resulted from AN3 reports. It does not include one AN3 edit-warring block he received as an IP editor, nor does it include several warnings he recieved from administrators at AN3.

  • June 2012, found to be edit warring, but the report was stale
  • April 2013, blocked 24 hours for edit warring and incivility
  • December 2014, found to be edit warring, but closed without action to deescalate
  • July 2015, warned for edit warring, page protected
  • June 2025, blocked 48 hours for edit warring and incivility

I've participated in ANI threads on SchroCat's behavior, which makes me involved. I believe the summaries provided to be accurate, but I encourage others to check my work. Toadspike [Talk] 01:20, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

From the SPI archive, SchroCat's block logs as an IP editor [3][4] show that he was blocked repeatedly for his behavior as an IP editor (edit-warring, personalizing content disputes, "disruptive editing") and once for evading those blocks on another IP range. This is only relevant insofar as it shows a continuation of the behavior outlined elsewhere in this request. Toadspike [Talk] 01:45, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by AP 499D25

Uninvolved user here, coming from AN/I. I had a bit of a look at that relevant thread, and what I'm getting at here, is that there seems to be a bit of a 'dilemma' regarding whether or not to take action on SchroCat. On one hand the incivility comes from dealing with low-quality edits on Featured Articles that SchroCat had successfully nominated or is nominating, and severe sanctions would mean the loss of a significant FA contributor. On the other hand, civility is a mandatory policy that all editors must follow, including the most experienced and top contributors. Incivility creates a toxic environment that can lead to a cycle of further incivility and can drive editors away. I too was on the fence about whether to support or oppose sanctions against SchroCat, although I didn't comment in that AN/I thread. Anyhow, since the community could not come to a consensus on AN/I, I would support an arbitration case.
I should also note that I am not a fan of "unblockable" cases where, a top-notch editor gets away with violations of some policies/guidelines just because they are a significant contributor and would leave a big hole in the community if they left. Does this mean I can take advantage of my position to also do the same thing? The ramifications of "unblockables" are pretty damning to say the least. — AP 499D25 (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

Like Carrite, I do not see a situation here that needs to be urgently dealt with by ArbCom. At the ANI, I do see a number of editors with axes to grind against SchroCat and a number of !votes for action against him that have flimsy or no rationales. I can't help being reminded of the Portals case against Brown-Haired Girl in 2020, and if this case does follow that path, I can only hope that this set of Arbitrators will not vote based on Findings of Fact that bore little relation to reality. Black Kite (talk) 08:54, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Andrew Davidson

The content issue in this case was a petty matter and the ANI thread seemed a disproportionate response. If Arbcom takes the case, it should please consider the more general problem of WP:UNBLOCKABLEs and invite creative improvements and solutions for this endemic issue.

To help with the brainstorming, please consider common countermeasures to anti-social behaviour such as the swear jar and community service. Wikipedia needs such a variety of forfeits, penalties and penance to deal with such misdemeanors. For example, perhaps we might take inspiration from the Loveday of 1458 which was a historic attempt to resolve some factional strife. Kudos to Fortuna imperatrix mundi and the other editors who have provided this timely example as today's featured article.

So, as a specific suggestion, an incivility offense might be punished by requiring the offender to thank a hundred editors, say. And they would have to do this properly with a personalised message such as a barnstar or other visible evidence. This might be more positive and constructive than blocking which doesn't seem to work well.

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:39, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by AirshipJungleman29

Carrying on from my my comments at the ANI, I'd emphasise that if ArbCom does take the case, it needs to find a good solution to the Schro Cat-related disputes. I worry whether the above murmurs of a general "unblockables" case will lead to less focus on SC's positive contributions, and make the blunt-force remedies more likely. Take the case, but only if you prefer the scalpel over the hammer. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:24, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by QEDK

I think there is sufficient evidence that this matter is intractable to the point where the community is unable to make a resolution. While I agree that this is on the low-end of the bar in terms of the kind of disputes we expect the committee to resolve, it would arguably be much more efficient as a case - futhermore, I would also argue that the committee has mostly made solid resolutions to similar conduct-around-content-based disputes in the past. --qedk (t 愛 c) 11:10, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Mackensen

Wikipedia:Civility isn't about using the right words to talk to people, or thanking them, or whatever. It's about a willingness to work in a collaborative and respectful way with other editors, and not just the ones who agree with you. I don't doubt the good faith of the contributors here who have successfully collaborated with SchroCat and don't understand the fuss. I invite them to walk in someone else's shoes and imagine if editing one of SchroCat's articles in a way he disapproved of was a formative experience as a new editor. Mackensen (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by RoySmith

There's a couple of different things wrapped up together here. One is SchroCat's tone. The other is WP:FAOWN, which is currently being hashed out at WP:VPI and WT:OWN. I suspect people are letting their frustration with the latter affect their thinking on the former. On the first topic, yes, SC can be curt and occasionally incivil. I wish he would work on being less so. But he's already stated, both here and at the ANI, that he's aware of that and will endeavor to improve. What more could we ask for?

When evaluating an editor's history, yes their past contributions to the project count. That often leads to excusing their excesses per WP:UNBLOCKABLE. I look at it differently; I'm a firm believer in Noblesse oblige, and that certainly applies to somebody with SC's tenure as both an editor in general and a contributor to FA in specific. It is important to keep an eye on FAs to make sure they don't degrade into mush, and this is especially true for WP:TFA because material on the main page is a magnet for anything from straight-out vandalism to just plain good-faith but low-quality edits. But I wish people in general who are curating their past FAs would be a little less touchy about changes other people make and try harder to differentiate between "Not how I would have said it" vs "Clearly makes the article worse". It is certainly tiring to fight the same battles over and over; how many times can you say "I'm sorry, but adding that infobox really isn't useful" with a smile and not let it get to you? As many times as necessary! While obsessing over mdashes is just plain dumb, so is obsessing over putting them back. Roll your eyes (in private) if you want, but let it be.

I really think Robert McClenon jumped the gun on declaring this to be an "intractable" problem and requesting a case; the committee should decline. I could see this ending up with a motion officially encouraging SC to take his own retrospective acknowledgement and promise to work on improvement to heart. But a full case would be absurd. RoySmith (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by JuniperChill

Not sure if anyone has pointed out about this but SchroCat is listed at the very top of WP:AEDR saying that the user is required to disclose alternative accounts and that the restriction was placed by the committee as part of an unblock condition. I definitely see a case for this to be accepted as the user was constantly the subject of AN/ANI/AN3, not to mention the lengthy block log and the fact that it the user has made over 120k edits since 2011. JuniperChill (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@JuniperChill: I'd appreciate you changing the pronoun you use to refer to SchroCat. I don't believe that they use it/its pronouns, and doing so can be perceived as demeaning. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:56, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
@HouseBlaster:  Done, using 'the user'. I was intending to use it as another way to say the user but I didn't think it was used as a pronoun. I'll also post a reply to FIM within a short period. JuniperChill (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by FIM

Noting that I've seen this. Thanks for the pings; it's nice, of course, to be wanted. —Serial Number 54129 (wake up Fortuna) 17:25, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

(By the way, while I'm here, I tentatively—with all due respect—question the value of JuniperChill's statement above. I don't see how the AEDR restriction on multiple accounts is relevant (as mis/use thereof hasn't been questioned by anyone as far as I can see), being "constantly the subject of AN/ANI/AN3" is so vague as to be useless, while "the fact that it has made over 120k edits since 2011" ("It"=SchroCat, yes?) is ... odd. Again, I can't see the relevance of edit count at all, except for demonstrating how productive SC has been. Perhaps some clarification is in order. —Serial Number 54129 (wake up Fortuna) 17:39, 25 March 2026 (UTC))

Statement by The Blade of the Northern Lights

The only interaction I had with SchroCat which I can remember was at W. Somerset Maugham, specifically in Talk:W. Somerset Maugham/Archive 1#Copy edit redux. I, and others, were attempting to streamline the extremely verbose, unencyclopedic, flowery language in that article, and SchroCat was one of a few editors engaging in belligerent stonewalling of even the most minor changes. That was large part of the discussion degenerating into futility, at the time I eventually walked away in exasperation (to what I think is the ongoing detriment of the article, which I still find borderline unreadable due to its extreme verbosity). I know this is going back some time, but I think it's demonstrative of both the problem and its intractability. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:17, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Gerda Arendt

I suggest to look at Talk:Erik Satie, the most recent RfC on a composer infobox that I recall, March 2025, for an example of interactions. Two threads preceded the RfC. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

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 case request or provide additional information.

SchroCat: Clerk notes

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

SchroCat: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <4/2/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Voting is ongoing in the ANI thread and I don't think ArbCom should step in before the community has finished having its say. But if the community can't decide what to do here – either because they don't agree on whether something should be done, or because they agree that something should be done but can't decide what – SchroCat's pockmarked block log and the discussion in the thread suggest that this might well be something we should look at. It feels like the Committee has had an aversion these past few years to taking cases on singular editors – myself, I think one of the best things we can do for the community is investigate when there is a potential unblockables case. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 13:07, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    • @HJ Mitchell: I agree that it is an accusation of severe misconduct without evidence, but since this is ARC, I don't want to immediately shut down accusations if there's some chance they could be backed up. If you feel there's a broader user-conduct case to be pursued against Dronebogus for hounding SchroCat, I would say go to ANI. @Dronebogus: please substantiate your accusations to a reasonable degree with evidence or strike them. (Toning them down would also be very welcome.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    • @Dronebogus: Plenty of editors have a long block log – that can't sustain your original comment, and on second thought, I'm not sure any evidence could. I'd hoped a nudge would be enough to get you to back down from a statement I would have assumed was as hyperbolic as it gets, had you not qualified it with "without hyperbole"; but since that doesn't seem to have worked, I am going to remove it. Feel free to replace it with something that could reasonably be supported by the evidence you have cited. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:08, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    • Per my previous comments and the close of the ANI thread, accept. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:50, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Recuse. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:35, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
  • In principle I am happy to accept this kind of case, but I'm puzzled by the timing. The thread is still active and, to my knowledge, no one has tried to close it. -- asilvering (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    Alright: Accept. The close: There is clear consensus that SchroCat has acted with incivility. SchroCat even admits as much in this thread. What there is no consensus about, however, is how to respond to that incivility. -- asilvering (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    @Andrew Davidson, as a historian I feel compelled to point out that the guy who came up with the Loveday was later imprisoned, and quite possibly murdered, by one of the participants, and that the wars continued for a decade or so after that. -- asilvering (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I feel similarly to asilvering. If the thread closes with a referral to ArbCom, or with otherwise inconclusive results, I'd be open to hearing a case. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:37, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Accept, per leek. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
  • If we take a case, I think Dronebogus is a natural inclusion as party. Izno (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    Definitely open to this, although we may need to workshop scope a bit. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:57, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    ARBINFOBOX2?! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    is it considered unprofessional behaviour to trout your fellow arbs at a case filing, asking for a friend -- asilvering (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    oh no. is it too late to retract my acceptance theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:07, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    NGL I am (seriously) entertaining it given the number of AN/ANI discussions raised around infoboxes since the last go (there are more names in the potentials list), but the ANI presented in this case seems to be about only the incivility of SchroCat. Izno (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    Great. If you're the filing party, we can have three concurrent cases, each with a recused arb. If we keep this up we can get to arbcom-en-e or, with luck, arbcom-en-n. -- asilvering (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    Hate to be that guy... but WP:ARBINFOBOX2 exists. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:36, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    "SchroCat and related parties" is about where I am for scoping. Izno (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    The ANI thread was about SchroCat's behaviour in general, not restricted to any kind of topic, so this seems reasonable. -- asilvering (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    Having reread the recent ANI thread with an eye to listing other parties, I'm equivocal at the moment on Dronebogus, but do think that if Dronebogus is included as a party, Fortuna imperatrix mundi would have to be as well. Their conflicts in that thread had to be hatted twice and are a strong hint of wider issues. -- asilvering (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    @Dronebogus, the list of parties is decided by ArbCom regardless of your desire in the matter. Your choice in relevant proceedings is whether and how much you participate. Izno (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I'd like to hear from SchroCat. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:36, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    I'd also like to hear from Fortuna imperatrix mundi. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:38, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Procedural decline to stop the train and let SC respond --Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:41, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    Adding my procedural decline for the same reason. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:15, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    (Explanatory note: Without these temporary procedural declines to delay acceptance, the current 4 accept votes with 0 declines would be sufficient to open a case under our procedures.) ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 04:50, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I'm going to check back tomorrow before voting on this. - Aoidh (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://70.231.62.181/index.php?title=MyWiki:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=1345400558"