Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchroCat/Proposed decision

Wikipedia Arbitration
Arbitration directory About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behaviour during a case may also be considered by the Committee in arriving at a final decision.

Arbitrators active on this case

Active:

1. Aoidh (talk · contribs)
2. Asilvering (talk · contribs)
3. CaptainEek (talk · contribs)
4. Daniel (talk · contribs)
5. Elli (talk · contribs)
6. Girth Summit (talk · contribs)
7. Guerillero (talk · contribs)
8. HouseBlaster (talk · contribs)
9. Izno (talk · contribs)
10. KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs)
11. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs)
12. SilverLocust (talk · contribs)
13. Theleekycauldron (talk · contribs)

Inactive:

1. Sdrqaz (talk · contribs)

Recused:

1. HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs)

Statement by Dronebogus

I would once again like to state that my stalking behavior towards SchroCat was completely unacceptable, and I formally apologize. Dronebogus (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Re:HouseBlaster it is possible for an apology to be sincere and also be groveling and begging for mercy, and being frustrated that even a sincere apology doesn’t prevent you from being punished does not invalidate the apology. Dronebogus (talk) 13:18, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

IMO there is too much focus on a) my logged sanctions, and b) the number of those sanctions. When formally sanctioned I don’t disrupt that particular area again. Other parties here have rarely been formally sanctioned, seemingly having “clean” or comparatively mild records, and have clearly been shown to be extremely disruptive. Dronebogus (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Re:AJM one was about XfDs, the other was about talk pages. Those are two different areas. Dronebogus (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I wasn’t banned from IP edits. I was banned from XfD for something about IP edits. That’s different to me. Dronebogus (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I think it’s also become clear that there is a double standard for conduct expectations. Established and respected users get away with patently unacceptable conduct (the relevant misbehavior here is actually mild compared to some of what I’ve seen and experienced) bend existing rules, and make up unwritten rules practically at whim; but newer and/or less respected users are expected to stringently obey these requirements, as well as learn and obey unwritten expectations, or face punishment. Dronebogus (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith asserts there is indeed a double standard for more experienced users, citing WP:5P1. There is a difference between “being here to build an encyclopedia” and “I’m vested, I can do whatever I want; you aren’t, you have to play by the rules”. That is the underlying crux of this whole case, I think. Dronebogus (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I was critical of a lot of “evidence” in workshop not because I considered it invalid criticism of my past behavior, or thought I did nothing wrong, but because it was irrelevant to the supposed scope outlined for this case. Dronebogus (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I am skeptical of the “three-strikes law” attitude towards sanctions displayed here— the belief that since I have an arbitrary number of blocks/sanctions that alone is sufficient grounds for an indef. Dronebogus (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: I will not be coming back if I am banned. Dronebogus (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that, Dronebogus. Genuinely. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:51, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

It’s clear enough I am not wanted here. Dronebogus (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

If I may be so bold, I think it indecorous for arbitrators to be making little jokes or punctuating their statements with smiley faces in this sort of proceeding. Exactly this. I was going to wait for the fifth Arb vote on my banning but this convinced me it’s time to stop waiting for the other shoe to drop and make my retirement formal. If the arbs are not taking this seriously I’m no longer dignifying it with my involvement. Dronebogus (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Don’t send me a notification when I’m blocked. Dronebogus (talk) 03:03, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Why would I want to be reinstated in a toxic community? Dronebogus (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Comments by Thryduulf

My first thoughts are that I like the anti-coordination restrictions as a concept, I presume the last clause of Neither editor may comment on any third party's user talk page in a discussion involving the other, nor may they start any such discussion. means that e.g. if I reverted an edit by SchroCat, Tim Riley would not be allowed to initiate a discussion about that on my talk page? There doesn't seem to be though a prohibition on initiating a discussion about such on a noticeboard though - but doing so would mean that SchroCat would not be able to comment in that discussion (per the second bullet) even though it involves their action. That cannot be ArbCom's intent. It also seems to allow them to comment on discussions on SchroCat's user talk page, which also feels odd?

Secondly, I'm surprised to see the principles about shutting down discussions (user talk pages, introspection) (which I think are very relevant) were not accompanied by any explicit findings of fact nor remedies. It's not clear if shutting down feedback or complaints would be a violation of the behavioural expectations mentioned in SchroCat probation? Thryduulf (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: you're correct: if you reverted a SchroCat edit, then an editor under this restriction who isn't SchroCat would not be allowed to initiate that discussion with you. My goal with this remedy was to provide a general alternative to i-bans for dealing with improper coordination (as i-bans really are not the correct tool here).

I don't think the loophole (starting a discussion at a noticeboard) is really much of an issue; the intent is pretty clear given point 2. On the other hand, I did want them to be able to comment on Schro's talkpage -- I don't see much downside to allowing that. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:13, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't see starting a discussion at a noticeboard as a problematic loophole, but an editor being unable to comment on their own actions in such a discussion I do see as an issue. Thryduulf (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

That would fall under the standard exceptions to an editing restriction. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:10, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Re Gramix13, I strongly suspect that an editor racing to comment on as many discussions as possible to block another participant would be seen as gaming and dealt with accordingly. However, as the remedy is intended to deal with editors who generally support each others' viewpoints I don't think this is a significantly likely occurrence. I don't think there is a way around the edit conflict issue, although enforcing administrators need to be aware that accidental violations are possible in this manner. Thryduulf (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Comments and questions by Jéské Couriano

In re the anti-coordination restrictions ) Two questions, neither of which really affect how they're read:

1. Is this wording intended to more or less standardise this sort of remedy?
2. Was the situation at MGH an inspiration for how these were worded?

—Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 23:40, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:42, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

That leads to my next question (and I'm very happy this is getting more-or-less standardised): Should the anti-collusion remedies apply to all users for whom a anti-collusion remedy passes, rather than just party <foo> and SchroCat? (For example, what's stopping Ssilvers from participating in a discussion that Tim riley has commented in, but SchroCat hasn't?) As written, and given the FoFs, this seems like a rather glaring loophole, though I wouldn't have a clue how to word a sanction in this fashion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 02:10, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

It wouldn't be that hard to do a 3+ party version of the sanction, but I didn't really think that was necessary here. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:08, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Should the anti-collusion remedies apply to all users for whom a anti-collusion remedy passes, rather than just party <foo> and SchroCat? I don't think we have evidence to support that this would be useful or necessary. -- asilvering (talk) 03:38, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering: FoF 10 (Prior conflicts) seems to contradict that. (It's also why I specifically named Ssilvers and Tim riley in my example.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 06:52, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

In re SFR's rewording of the anti-coordination restrictions ) You may read it that way, but the simpler text is about as ambiguous as Ambiguity. By the text of the "few word" version, what would happen if a unrelated discussion suddenly turns into a content/conduct dispute involving them (as an example, SchroCat being invoked in an unrelated AN/I thread where Ssilvers/Tim riley - neither of whom have anti-coords with each other - have already participated?) What if an edit-war erupts on a page in the middle of SchroCat and Ssilvers/Tim riley (who don't have anti-coords with each other) making edits to the page to enforce an existing talk page consensus (that they did not otherwise comment on)? Per that wording, SchroCat and Ssilvers/Tim riley, despite their best efforts to quickly get out of Dodge to avoid the situation, are apt to be dragged to Enforcement for technical breach of their anti-coordination restrictions if a routine discussion suddenly turns into an episode of The Jerry Springer Show.

The simpler wording also doesn't do a whole lot of good dealing with the main issue, which is SchroCat, Tim riley, and Ssilvers acting as a bloc. (This is also an issue with the wordier ones; I again cite FoF10.) It merely stops them from involving SchroCat and either Ssilvers or Tim riley in discussions together. It doesn't stop Ssilvers and Tim riley from colluding with each other and cutting SchroCat out. It also doesn't stop them from acting as a bloc in less contentious content discussions, nor does it stop them from coordinating at multiple venues at once as long as they leave no on-wiki paper trail. ArbCom sanctions editors for this. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 17:20, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano, again speaking only for myself, the issue appears to be Tim riley and Ssilvers acting in a bloc with SchroCat. If it transpires that Ssilvers and Tim riley are a significant problem even in the absence of SchroCat, the committee (or the community) can take action then. -- asilvering (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I would be receptive to ARCA if these two together are an issue. Izno (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

topic bans violations are judged at the time the edit is made; if one person comments on a discussion and then it becomes a dispute involving a person they have an ACR with, that's not a tban vio. it would be a tban vio to get involved in that dispute, though. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:28, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The anti-coordination remedies in this case are intended to formalise such remedies going forward (see my comment above), and I foresee at some point MGH's anti-coordination remedy being amended to match the wording here. It just won't happen earlier than six months from now, as that is the earliest MGH's anti-coordination remedy would come in force (assuming R3YBOl and Skitash successfully appeal their topic-bans at the earliest possible opportunity). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 18:40, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@RoySmith: He's referring to these ArbCom cases, all of which involved Malleus Fatuorum/Eric Corbett and all of which centred around Corbett's rampant incivility and borderline-"unblockable" status - similar to this case's locus. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 19:32, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

In re civility enforcement ) The way I see it, a probation is punting the issue back to the community, and historically probations focused primarily on civility haven't worked, with the most prominent failures being Eric Corbett, Δ (who also famously regarded community restrictions as suggestions at best), and CheeseDreams (who was declared a vexatious litigant, would later be busted using socks, and finally deliberately compromise her account). The issue being that either the editor flames out believing the probation is a joke and gets 86'd or the editor toes the line and couples their insincere civility with a focus on content creation as a form of insurance given our collective reticence to get rid of good content writers until it's too late.

As for the example of BrownHairedGirl, I don't think the issue was primarily her content creation coupled with incivility. If you're arrogant enough to attempt to weaponise Arbitration to get rid of a rival you're broadcasting your attitude towards Wikipedia and its policies with a megaphone cranked to max. PTL was merely the point where BHG lost any sort of benefit of the doubt. Her behaviour in SCD smacks to me as an attempt at a Paranoia-style attempt to take others down with her when it became clear ArbCom wasn't going to let her trample all over process. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 23:37, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Gramix13

In regards to the second bullet point of the anti-coordination restriction,

Neither editor may comment in any consensus-building discussion (including noticeboards, content review processes, or deletion discussions), in which the other has already participated.

What is to happen in the event of an edit conflict between two parties subject to this restriction? I'm concerned that this remedy may create race conditions where, if the two parties have conflicting views on a discussion, the two may race to be the first to comment on said discussion in order to effectively block the other from commenting on the discussion in order to prevent the other's opinion from being considered in the consensus-building process. Perhaps one party may attempt to comment on as many discussions as possible in order to limit the ability of the other party from partaking in discussion across Wikipedia.

There is a chance I may be overstating the potential risk of this remedy in practice however, and that these won't pose a real issue. Gramix13 (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

The issue at hand here is editors who are supporting each other, not sabotaging each other. -- asilvering (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Comments by Toadspike

The statement under "SchroCat's history" is incomplete. In addition to his main account, SchroCat has been blocked at least eight more times under various IPs (see , , the SPI, and my preliminary statement). Toadspike [Talk] 06:27, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I realize you may have intended this to be covered by "except sockpuppetry blocks" or "SchroCat has been blocked for misuse of multiple accounts", but it seems inadvisable to provide a specific number knowing that it is inaccurate. It is also not clear if saying that all of these blocks were "sockpuppetry blocks" is accurate, given extensive debate in the SPI archive. If ArbCom would like to retroactively declare all of this "sockpuppetry", that is fine, but I am curious if that was the intent. Toadspike [Talk] 06:39, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I dispute knowing that it is inaccurate. It is, as stated, an accurate account of the blocks that were not related to sockpuppetry. -- asilvering (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering I apologize for that wording, which was unnecessarily harsh. "related to sockpuppetry" is different from just "sockpuppetry". Based on the SPI archive, though there may have been other reasons to block, it is not clear to me that the several blocks for sockpuppetry or block evasion were correct in claiming sockpuppetry had taken place, and there was at least one block that was explicitly not for sockpuppetry (see comment by Bbb23). By stating that all blocks not listed were "sockpuppetry blocks", ArbCom would be endorsing a specific version of events and perhaps also a specific interpretation of the guidelines at play, esp. WP:VANISH, that may have implications outside of this case. Toadspike [Talk] 20:36, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Graham87

In the light of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchroCat/Proposed decision#User talk pages, I think it's worth pointing out that, just under two hours ago, SchroCat changed the maximum amount of time a thread can stay on his talk page before being automatically archived from five days to one. Users are absolutely allowed to manage talk pages as they see fit, but I for one consider this a fairly aggressive archiving setting and would be much more OK with it as a temporary measure rather than a permanent one. It'd frustrate users who don't check their pings/watchlists every day, for instance. Graham87 (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Elaborated on below. Graham87 (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Statement and question from SC

@ Arbs, your analysis of the evidence is largely correct. I have in the past been rude to other editors and resisted some changes that, while not improving FAs, did not materially worsen them. I need to be better and I'm working on myself.

I have a question on proposals 13a and b. Do I take it that if either of these pass, I will be unable to write and co-nominate articles for FA with Tim riley? – SchroCat (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Can you explain what has changed between all of the examples provided by leek here and now? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

If the new evidence had been presented in the evidence phase it would have been a better time and place to ask that question (and it's odd as neither Nemov nor Harry made any mention of removing messages from my talk page. Indeed looking at both the Preliminary and Evidence phases, I don't think anyone has mentioned my user talk page at all for any reason). It's possibly a moot point, given asilvering's answer below. - SchroCat (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

You could write articles with Tim, but Tim would have to be the one to take it through FAC. -- asilvering (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

That would be unworkable, unfortunately. As co-writers it would need both to take it through FAC and answer questions on it. I'll wait and see how the voting goes, but this doesn't sound like a constructive outcome and would cross one of my bright-line tests for continuing. - SchroCat (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

If you tell us in advance that the remedies that fall short of a siteban are unworkable, that doesn't leave us a lot of room to manoeuvre in the voting. -- asilvering (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I clearly haven't said anything like that. There are several steps open to you as Arbs (including potential measures not yet outlined in the PD). There are a small number of possible steps that you could take that would fail my bright-line test. We'll see how the Venn diagram shakes out in the end as the possible ramifications. - SchroCat (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Why'd you shorten your user talk archive bot limit to 1 day from 5? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:52, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I have emailed you. SchroCat (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I am, on the balance, willing to accept your explanation that this is not an end-run around the user talk pages principle. May I share your email with the committee? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:08, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Slightly reluctantly, but yes. I have also sent a second email with further details. - SchroCat (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Why is this being done via email? Does it involve private or confidential information? Daniel (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes. As I have said above, I am (reluctantly) okay with the two emails being shared with the committee. Once you see them, you will see why I have emailed the information. - SchroCat (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I've seen one of them, and there's nothing private in that one in my opinion. This is off the back of you emailing multiple Committee members earlier in the case phase, attempting to influence our reading of some evidence, as SFR noted in his vote here. Daniel (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad, I thought I'd forwarded both emails in the chain and only did one; I've shared the first email as well now. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:09, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks leeky. SC, for what it's worth and as per my vote on the principle in question, I don't really consider the user talk page management (with removing posts and 'banning' users) to be of significant concern to me. Others will definitely prioritise it differently, based on the votes on the principle and general commentary, but having freedom to manage one's user talk page is somewhat important for a whole variety of reasons, including the one that was emailed about. There are other conduct questions at play here and they're the ones I'm focusing on at the moment. Daniel (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. - SchroCat (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

• Guerillero, "The talk page comments show a man who thinks arbitration is a negotiation. At this point in the process, being chipper about the sanctions imposed on you is neither here nor there". I'm sorry, but both those statements are fundamentally untrue. I do not think arbitration is a negotiation and I have not tried to negotiate at any point (I have made a statement that if the committee decides to stop me being active in areas which bring me enjoyment, then I will cease editing. That's not negotiating: it's a statement in line with the ethos that "Wikipedia is a volunteer service", nothing more.) I have also not been "chipper" about any part of this process in any way, shape or form. You may still continue to support an indefinite block, but you should do it on the correct basis, not because you've misread anything you think I've said. - SchroCat (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

  "[T]here are a litany of ways to shoot yourself in the foot and receive harsher sanctions. These include, but are not limited to,: [...] [t]hreatening to leave the project" -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:50, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

  We've got a decision where you're not permanently banned. I've moved to close while it's there. Stop talking. Katie^talk 12:56, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

  I’m going to stop, Katie, but I’ve not “threatened” anything. - SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Statement by AirshipJungleman29

Thanks for the work done on this. A few points, some personal opinion and some more dispassionately analytical:

• Thank you for recognising that infoboxes were not the main locus of the dispute; I think my evidence and workshop submissions clearly showed that.
• I'd urge the arbs to endorse remedies 4), 5), and if necessary 6), which are to me very much preferable to 7) (c.f. my comment here... so many words and hours later, and I'm still saying the same thing).
• I presume 10b)/11b)/13b) point two includes general talk page discussion, which seems a little harsh for topics that both editors have heavily worked on (e.g. John Gielgud, worked on by both TR and SC)?
  • 10c)/11c)/13c): ScottishFinnishRadish few word not seem very clear - proposed restriction seem virtually identical to interaction ban, ooga booga?
• I note Dronebogus's apology above takes responsibility only for part of the finding of fact "Dronebogus's history" and not at all of the finding of fact "Dronebogus's conduct". They have repeatedly refused to consider the other areas in this case on the grounds it is not under discussion. On that note, I quite like the proposed fifth principle, the final sentence especially.
• Again, I doubt that a two-way IBAN between SC and DB is needed, because the former has rarely if ever initiated contact with the latter.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

They only apply when something is a dispute, and allows them to collaborate on FAC/article work or enjoy a friendly rag chew. The idea being that they can't revert to support each other or take part in any discussions about disputes, including cheerleading on each others talk pages. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

If an editor opposes an FAC, is that now a dispute? If a featured article review is opened on an article, is that ipso facto a dispute? If a friendly discussion on an article talk page is interrupted by a vaguely hostile third party, is that now a dispute only one editor can reply to? Can they discuss who will be the person to reply, or is that also under the topic ban, and has to take place offwiki? Few word not very helpful for many many edge cases. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes, no. There's no way to cover every edge case that will arise from any sanction like this. The point is to stop disruption, and I'd rather leave it open and broadly construed than allow the same group of editors to still revert in support of each other. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

As an example of how no amount of words will fix edge cases, in the other anti-coordination restriction we have Neither editor may comment on any third party's user talk page in a discussion involving the other, nor may they start any such discussion. So editor A and B can both revert editor X on an article, but at that point neither of them can comment on editor X's talk page or give an edit warring warning. If editor A and B work together on a FA editor C is prohibited from going to editor A or B's talk page to say "You and the other editor did a good job on Article Y!" because that is starting a discussion on one of their user talk pages about another.
Per Neither editor may comment in any consensus-building discussion (including noticeboards, content review processes, or deletion discussions), in which the other has already participated. editor A and B can both revert editor X on an article, editor A can start a discussion on the talk page about it, editor B cannot take part in that discussion but can continue to revert. Editor C can also show up and revert, but can't discuss the revert on the talk page if editor A has already started a discussion. That also prevents any cooperation at FAC because that is a consensus-building/content review discussion. At least few word version allows that as long as there is no actual dispute. You can use a million words and never resolve every edge case that could arise and the more exact you try to be the more wikilawyering and unintended consequences it invites. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Alright, still seems too extreme for me, but thanks for explaining. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, on a scale of Nothing at all -> tbanned from disputes with each other -> fully iban -> party at the crux is banned it seems pretty low on extremity. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm just looking at the potential impact on content creation. I appreciate you have a different focus, with respect to principle 3. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:07, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Separate question ScottishFinnishRadish: may I inquire what the "personal opinion" regarding Dronebogus was? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:30, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Their artwork was very bad, and I'm pretty sure I supported a ban at ANI at one point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

When formally sanctioned I don’t disrupt that particular area again. Dronebogus, in 2023 you were formally TBANned from XFDs after an ANI thread titled "Dronebogus doesn't like IP editing". Two years later, you accepted a voluntary TBAN from removing IP comments. Now you also are annoyed about an "arbitrary number" of active sanctions being enough to propose banning you, for which you may see Tamzin's quote from the first discussion (August 2023) quoted in the first paragraph of the second. And still, remarkably, you are not "showing much interest in the substance of the criticism and just trying to get it over with". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah. Totally. Two completely different areas. Removing IP comments in deletion discussions and removing them on general article discussions are so separate it boggles the mind how anyone could think they are related. I have no idea how I could possibly have thought these areas were even vaguely linked. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

EDIT: Removing IP comments in article deletion discussions and removing them on general article discussion pages are so indisputably similar areas that I have serious difficulty believing the good faith of anyone arguing the opposite. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Can we not have the snarky comments on the talk page of an Arbitration pending decision examining incivility and snarky comments, please? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I wasn’t aware snarky comments were within scope! Alright, I’ll rephrase. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think this comment does an excellent job summing up Dronebogus's viewpoint, especially read in conjunction with HB's comment on remedy three. I'll leave this thread here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Statement by RoySmith

Moved from Dronebogus' section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

there is a double standard for conduct expectations In a word, "yes" and unapologetically so. WP:5P1 says "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia ... not a soapbox ... a social network [or] an experiment in anarchy or democracy". Of course I would prefer that everybody is on their best behavior all of the time, but ultimately we're here to write an encyclopedia. Every action is judged by whether it improves the encyclopedia or not and every editor is judged on whether their actions in aggregate do so. If you're making lots of valuable contributions, that's not carte blanche to do whatever you want, but yes, it does move the needle on evaluating whether somebody is a net positive or a net negative for the project. RoySmith (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

If I may be so bold, I think it indecorous for arbitrators to be making little jokes or punctuating their statements with smiley faces in this sort of proceeding. RoySmith (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I honestly didn't even realize I had done that—it's muscle memory when I use one of the reply template things. My apologies; removed (I don't think striking it would be visible enough). Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:16, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I've removed the The Office meme. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Guerillero what does "keeping Malleus inside the tent" mean? I'm assuming some cultural reference that I'm just not getting? RoySmith (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Eric Corbett formerly Malleus Fatuorum. See WP:ARBCIV, WP:ARBGGTF, and WP:ARBAE2 for the cases. None of them are the reason he is currently blocked. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:36, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I had found User:Malleus and Malleus Scotorum, neither of which seemed to make sense. RoySmith (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

S Marshall

Thank you to the committee for this, and particular thanks for posting the proposed decision on schedule. I have never seen this in any other cases I've participated in, except Maghreb.—S Marshall T/C 18:30, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

• And WP:ARBDEL, I've been reminded.—S Marshall T/C 00:14, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  Dan and I had capitalization posted early. This committee has been fairly solid with timelines. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  And that matters, and I'm delighted. We seem to have come a long way since WP:ARBEC which is a really good thing. Justice delayed is justice denied; so therefore, speed matters.—S Marshall T/C 00:21, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• Was the "profile of [Editor name]" approach helpful, at all? Or a waste of words?—S Marshall T/C 16:52, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Comments by isaacl

I agree with RoySmith regarding inapt levity. I don't think it's a great idea to write sentences with poor grammar for effect (and I think it undermines the point that concise statements can still be clear). isaacl (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

In my view, the comment being an allusion to a television show doesn't alter that it used a type of phrasing for humourous effect (contradiction being one of the bases for humour). isaacl (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Regarding avoiding legalistic language: I'm in favour of that, but to me that doesn't mean wandering over to the opposite side of the spectrum. There are lots of other opportunities to be humourous. When an editor is reading a discussion about potential restrictions to be enacted on them, I appreciate it's a difficult conversation for them to hear (and can of course also be difficult for those in the discussion). I think being matter-of-fact is a better approach for effective communication. isaacl (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate this edit; thank you. isaacl (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Comments by GreenLipstickLesbian

@Isaacl I'm fairly confident that's a reference to the American TV show The Office. Which I don't get the hype around, but if I'm remembering the context well enough, I'd guess SFR's quote here is meant to be somewhat self-deprecating/Arbcom deprecating. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 01:35, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

That's correct, and it's a continuation from the earlier discussion during the drafting process. I've long had issues with Arbcom trying to write like judges or legislators and I think it generally leads to more problems than it solves. There's also the "already used their middle name" quip from my Grand Unified Scale of Arbcom Scoldings, another part of Arbcom legalese I've railed against for years, a view I'm sure FIM is familiar with. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:55, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I gave my own opinion on the passage of the relevant motion. And followed up. Alas. If we want to change it, my door is open. Izno (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I opposed the motion when it was passed, and I continue to have a dim view of the tripartite finger wagging system. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:25, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@Isaacl Personally, and if you'll pardon the tangent, I think there's a bit of difference between self deprecation and writ[ing] sentences with poor grammar for effect. Which, personally... eh, I'm not fond of referring to other people's grammar as 'poor' or 'bad' in contexts where it really doesn't matter (too much class/race/nationalism baggage for me; that's not to say I'm gonna start using 'inna' or 'munna' in mainspace, of course, but I ain't gonna criticize and of you for doing it in project space as long as you ain't doing it to mock another party). And, like, the context of it being a quote takes it from that 'potentially mocking' and undermining/unclear to just a pop culture reference.

Also, and this is, like, seriously tangential -- wanna have a conversation about code-switching between prestige dialects and non-prestige dialects sometime? Maybe it's dual-nationality part of my brain, but I love it. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 04:53, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Question from Rhododendrites

Just a question about the alternative anti-coordination restrictions, which read e.g. Tim riley and SchroCat are topic banned from article disputes or user disputes involving each other. This restriction may be appealed by either party six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.

So let's say SchroCat is the primary contributor to an article, and someone comes by and makes some lousy edit -- let's say inserting some POV claim to the lead. Tim riley sees this and reverts. If the POV editor restores it or starts a discussion, is SchroCat then prohibited from participating in that dispute and/or from editing the relevant part of the lead because it was Tim that made the revert?

It seems to me the aim of the remedy is to prevent one user from showing up where they were not previously involved in order to take a friend's side, but doesn't address situations where (a) both parties were heavily involved with the article prior to the dispute, or (b) the second actor, as my example above, is heavily involved with the article prior to the dispute. Does it make sense to add some sort of "except where a major contributor to the article" or something (granted, "major contributor" would be litigated). I guess I'm just looking for confirmation the arbs are considering that the party who's most familiar with the subject and the sourcing might be preventing from participating in article disputes purely due to someone else's actions (Tim's revert, in my example). Or am I misunderstanding? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:49, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I do not believe you are misunderstanding. That is either a weakness of the remedy or a strength, depending on one's perspective. -- asilvering (talk) 04:01, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Comments by Nemov

I had hoped that Dronebogus would modify their behavior over time. I reached out to him on several occasions after his interactions with SchroCat and others became battleground oriented. Notably, Dronebogus was not initially involved in the ANI that led to this case, but chose to involve themselves toward the end. That said, the community did not appear to be struggling to manage or resolve concerns related to his conduct.

The key point regarding SchroCat is well captured by ScottishFinnishRadish's observation that even with other restrictions, that's just foisting it back off on the community and an overtaxed AE. I encourage ArbCom to resolve this issue directly. A clear and enforceable outcome would be preferable to a complex or highly conditional remedy that the average editor is unlikely to understand or apply. This does not appear to be a situation where a complex solution will be effective; a more decisive resolution is likely necessary. Nemov (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Trumpetrep

Second Nemov's notion that a "clear and enforceable outcome would be preferable to a complex or highly conditional remedy". Trumpetrep (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Question from LakesideMiners

Is there a reason that the section is named "SchroCat Banned" rather then "SchroCat Indefinitely Banned"? I feel the latter is more, descriptive. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 00:27, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@LakesideMiners: Unless I am missing something obvious, the section is titled "SchroCat indefinitely banned". Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:30, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster mixed it up, ment to say Dronebogus LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 02:25, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah. I've added the word indefinitely to be consistent between proposed remedies 3 and 7. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:34, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Barkeep49

I hope the committee gives serious thought to the mismatch SFR has noted between the principles and the remedies. I am glad to see this ArbCom seriously consider options short of an indefinite ban for Schrocat (I haven't read the evidence but am familiar with his conduct from previous administrative work). However doing that while at the same time it passes an indefinite ban for Dronebogus does suggest Being Right Can Be Enough and Focusing on Content Isn't Enough But It Does Mitigate. As I don't think that's actually the message ArbCom intends to send, I would ask the Arbs to consider alternative principles that actually reflect the way it is interpreting and enforcing policy in the Findings of Facts and the Remedies. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree; BRIE and FOCIE are about what conduct is acceptable and what is not. The strength of the remedy is a calculation of what will cause the least disruption, including what it will take to curtail the conduct highlighted in the FOF and whether there are any productive activities we could look to preserve. SFR may be right that we're doing that calculation wrong, but it's not because any of us think that SchroCat's behavior wasn't disruptive on account of being right or focusing on content in discussions. We're all supporting the finding of fact that says his conduct was disruptive regardless of whether he was right or whether he focused on content. The mismatch here, if there is any, is between SchroCat's findings of fact and the corresponding remedies – on that, I'll have to ponder. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:19, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@SchroCat: I'm genuinely not sure what you hoped to achieve with your first comment towards Guillero. I suspect it was a genuine inability to leave unchallenged what you saw as incorrect facts (I suspect this in part by your need to further correct him in your reply to Katie). Regardless, going forward that's the kind of situation where I would suggest that you need to either find a way to express the sentiment outside of Wikipedia or at minimum send to someone you trust and say "is posting this a good idea or a bad idea?" and then really listen to the feedback you get. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Comments by Robert McClenon

Timeliness

As some other editors have said, this decision and the Maghreb decision have been posted on time, and other recent decisions have been posted on time. I don't think that these timely decisions are exceptions to the rule of late decisions, so much as they are a change in the pattern. ArbCom is now able to post decisions in a timely manner. Maybe somebody or somebodies, arbitrators and/or clerks, has learned how to pull together a skeleton in a timely manner. In any case, thank you. Please continue doing what you have been doing to provide timely postings.

Anti-coordination

In this case, there are reworded anti-coordination restrictions that are passing. In the Maghreb case, there are rules that combinations of editors are counted as a single editor. These appear to be two different tools for dealing with similar problems. If ArbCom intends to have both tools available and to choose between them as required, that will be good.

Advice to Dronebogus

Try establishing a history of editing constructively in the Simple English Wikipedia, Wiktionary, or Commons. That will be taken into account when you request reinstatement in May 2027November 2026. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment from Anonymous

I tend to read both Arbcom and Wikipedia in general from afar but I felt compelled to speak regarding the decision: I very strongly agree with User:RoySmith regarding sarcastic language by user User:ScottishFinnishRadish or smiley faces by User:HouseBlaster. If I was the person in a case on the receiving end of that, I would refuse to participate further in the case as I would determine those judging the case weren't taking it seriously or was targeting me especially. Houseblaster's reasoning that he didn't realise he was doing it is especially alarming in particular, as it either shows a lack of care or respect of the process. I am sure this wasn't the intention but that is the impression it gives me. Just my view. ~2026-18954-46 (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I made a mistake, and I can only offer my apologies and my assurances that it won't happen again. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:17, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment from Vanamonde

I have my own opinions on an indefinite vs a time-limited ban that aren't germane here. Much of the disagreement among arbs has centered on the community's willingness and ability to enforce the terms of probation. The concern here is real, but I note that if my reading is correct, SC will be subject to "sticky blocks", so to speak; blocks that carry the weight of an AE block, and aren't unilaterally reversible by another admin. This ought to help with the concern about SC being among the unblockables by virtue of having many friends, and thus with ease of enforcement. I would point out that while BHG's eventual indef block was placed by ARBCOM, there were two prior blocks placed that invoked the community's "sticky blocks" sanction. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Note on time limited bans from Moneytrees

The last time a time limited ban was imposed was for three months at 2018's Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb_and_others/Proposed_decision#Joefromrandb_banned_(II). From what I can see, it seems like it has worked in the long term, as Joe has not been blocked since, and is not a name I'm otherwise familiar with, suggesting low drama (?). Obviously this is not an exact comparison, but I thought it was worth noting. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:35, 3 May 2026 (UTC)