Proposed parties

• Robert McClenon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party

• SchroCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

•

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

• (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 if you are actually considering adding IBs to the case).

I obviously still have a lot of work to do in this respect, but it is a process rather than an event 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)

@CaptainEek:, Thanks for your comment. 1. I'd welcome mentorship from someone like Johnuniq, and I’ve emailed them to ask if they would be willing to do it and how it would work in practice. 2. I'm not sure of the benefits of a full case, given I admit culpability, and would accept action by motion, although I'm not sure that 1RR would be the right motion. A reversion restriction wouldn't improve civility and could even worsen the possibility of it reoccurring, given the increased frustration it would naturally bring. - SchroCat (talk) 05:21, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Just to update you, I've exchanged emails about a mentorship with Johnuniq and he's set out a framework of how it could work in practice. I would, of course, be willing to abide by this. - SchroCat (talk) 07:57, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

There seems to be thought by some people that I challenge all edits on the basis of FAOWN. That’s just not true. Although I have referred to it in the past, it’s not something I refer people to that often. More frequently I invoke BRD and STATUSQUO to get people onto the talkpage instead of them keeping reverting to force something poor into an article that has gained consensus through the featured article review policy. It is the frustration with people who breach BRD and STATUSQUO that I have tried to work on, albeit with very limited success so far. - SchroCat (talk) 11:06, 27 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

  LEvalyn's statement contains 422 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

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.

• February 2020, Ronz reports ShroCat, closed without action.

• July 2020 and September 2020, drive-by concerns about SchroCat in threads about HAL333 and Cassianto.

• 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.

• May 2024 an IP reports SchroCat, SchroCat's rollback is removed for mis-identification of vandalism.

• 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)

@ArbCom Clerks: Could I have an extension of 80 words for a comment on the infobox connection? ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2026 (UTC) Weird, my word counter said 496. This is enough. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I am concerned that, even when admitting fault, SchroCat is not completely calibrated to the community's civility norms. He states that I have been successful in avoiding dropping into uncivil behaviour around infoboxes, but in the most recent ANI thread I specifically identified two statements about infoboxes -- calling one a pointless excrescence and an idiotbox -- as uncivil. I am not confident that SchroCat can effectively self-monitor, and I believe external action is required. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 02:55, 27 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.

• January 2012, warned for edit warring and personal attacks

• June 2012, found to be edit warring, but the report was stale

• April 2013, blocked 24 hours for edit warring and incivility

• February 2014, found to be edit warring, page protected

• December 2014, found to be edit warring, but closed without action to deescalate

• July 2015, warned for edit warring, page protected

• February 2016, warned for edit warring

• November 2019, warned for edit warring

• December 2022, blocked 48 hours as an IP editor for edit warring

• 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 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)

asilvering, my thoughts on FAOWN and SC's application of it can be found at the ANI; my more general thoughts on its application can be found here (reiterating that I am mostly in agreement with Generalissima's comment). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:16, 26 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)

@CaptainEek I'm not willing to sign up for anything as formal as an arbcom-imposed mentorship, but I will state that if anybody finding themselves in an FAOWN-adjacent discussion desires another set of eyes, they should feel free to ping me for a WP:3O. They will find me middle-of-the-road on the "FAs are sacred" to "Anybody can edit" spectrum. RoySmith (talk) 13:21, 27 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)

@Fortuna imperatrix mundi: regarding the about the 'constantly the subject of AN/ANI/AN3', its due to the fact that, as pointed out by LEvalyn, SC was constantly the subject of the AN boards since 2020. I forgot to specify the year. And regarding the AEDR, it was because it was arbcom related. Note that I've only made a couple arbitration-related comments so I'll try to ensure its related to why it should be accepted from this point. JuniperChill (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by FIM

• Re: FAOWN, as I said, it currently seems to be understood by many editors—not all of them outside Wikiproject FAC—that the FAOWN policy is a reward, or something similar, for getting an article promoted. This is nescience. The policy is based on an even more fundamental tenet of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Consensus.

• FAC is no different in essence to an RfC, RM or any other decision making process: an editor makes a proposal (e.g.), other editors discuss it with reasons based in common sense, sources, and relevant Wikipedia policies or guidelines, and a consensus either forms. Or it doesn't. In either case, an uninvolved editor (known locally as coordinators) closes the discussion. Just like an RfC, except at FAC consensus is established wrt prose, structure, sourcing, CLOP/copyright, MoS and even accessibility; in fact it's a lot broader a discussion than an RfC, but the same principles of consensus underlie FAOWN as any other discussion on the project.

• While consensus can change, it is not unreasonable to expect that to occur through talk page discussion for major changes, and agree that this should probably be advertised more prominently. Consider, too, that WP:ONUS (policy) and BRD (commonly cited guideline) also apply. What would be the response, I wonder, if 1RR was proposed to apply to those seeking to change the FA...

• Conversely, LOCALCON doesn't apply as no one at FAC to my knowledge decides that relevant sitewide policies and guidelines should not apply to particular articles or even attempts to.

• It's kind of ironic that often, editors who believe they have the "right" to edit (in good faith of course, in the spirit of "Anyone Can Edit") could well be doing so against an established consensus. The current discussion elsewhere to neuter FAOWN would, actually, put FAs in the curious position of being the only articles on the project where established consensus can be ignored.

• If tensions arise over editing FAs, with an occasional, concomitant declension in delicacy of prose, it is because while consensus has to be upheld, often the only editor with the requisite understanding of the topic is the original nominator, who has access to the sources, etc, and of course everyone else has probably moved on. It is not surprising that editors take umbrage at having OWNership thrown at them when they are only upholding a consensus previously established by a collective of uninvolved editors. They may appear "involved" because they took the article through the FA process; but who else is likely to do it, and more to the point, who else is able to?
  —Serial Number 54129 ^{(wake up Fortuna)} 10:52, 27 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 who engaged in belligerent stonewalling of even the most minor changes. That was a 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)

SchroCat: my model is Brian Boulton, who removed the hidden notice about "no infobox" from his FA Cosima Wagner in 2016 and was always ready for compromise. You could do the same, in your mind, like making him also your mentor. Imagine the first infobox for Satie by an IP had been accepted!

Action by motion: how about the following: SchroCat is restricted from reverting infoboxes (but permitted to modify parameters), and to no more than two comments in a discussion thread, for some probation time. Everybody else does the same voluntarily, for fairness. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde

It looks like this is heading toward acceptance, so I want to recommend that ARBCOM examine this case not simply with respect to civility, but with respect to participation in the consensus-building process on articles that have some degree of community consensus for their text, most prominently FAs. If this same behavior had occurred on an ordinary article I don't believe the community would have been reluctant to sanction it; and at the same time this behavior doesn't usually occur on an ordinary article, because nobody is quite so attached to the text as written. The applicability and interpretation of FAOWN has been at the heart of many nasty disputes, and that broader debate has restarted in the context of the disputes linked above: (link). I don't believe it would be appropriate to expand the scope or the list of parties, but it would be helpful for ARBCOM to address the context in principles that emerge here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by George Ho

At first I was torn, but now the consensus has already made finding of facts on SchroCat's conduct. Personally, my interaction with Schrocat hasn't come close to whatever went in, though I didn't even bother thoroughly reading all of the dialogue that SchroCat was involved in recently. Nonetheless, ArbCom was suggested, but Robert already filed a request before the suggestion was made. As I must say this, however, I'm unsure whether a full case is necessary. Indeed, the community already made a fact about SchroCat's most recent conduct, so I'm uncertain how serious the level of SchroCat's recent conduct is, but rather I'm seeing how the community has struggled to reach an agreement on ways to enforce civility. If civility should be enforced further, but a full case is still deemed unnecessary, then a motion should be needed. Otherwise, why not discuss enforcing civility at Wikipedia talk:Civility or WP:VPP? Oh, and for reference, there was already the case fourteen years ago about enforcing civility, where the admins and editors were reminded about civility. --George Ho (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Becsh

Further to @Asilvering:’s comment regarding WP:FAOWN, which I have discussed here (): in my view, SchroCat’s behaviour stems from a desire to steward articles, especially FAs, that they have worked on extensively (alongside a few other editors). The notion of FA stewardship is problematic in itself given its relationship with WP:OWN and I think the Committee should consider whether FAOWN requires a rigorous review given the contention seen in only a couple days’ discussion.

I do believe this is an issue separate from SchroCat’s conduct, but per @Mackensen:’s statement I’d like to say that as an inexperienced editor I was almost put off the project altogether when I first encountered SchroCat, who is a member of a prolific and territorial number of editors who have made an undeniably massive contribution to Wikipedia, but nevertheless routinely demonstrate territorial behaviour unbecoming of their lengthy tenures whether such behaviour reaches incivility or not. I believe FAOWN facilitates behaviour that breaches the third and fourth pillars, and I question how many new editors the project may have lost as a result of the notion that some editors are indispensable or irreplaceable.

This is my first time posting in Arbitration so I’m not sure if this broadens the scope too much. Since there is no excuse for incivility regardless of one’s contributions to the project, I think it is best to approach SchroCat’s conduct and WP:FAOWN separately, however related they may be. Thanks — Becsh (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: In response to your comment, I would ask what it actually means to have the "right" to edit (in good faith of course, in the spirit of "Anyone Can Edit") when experienced editors can simply make baseless accusations of bad faith, as you recently did to me . The issue here is that FAOWNership behaviour often seems to facilitate (and justify) WP:VOTESTACKING, WP:BITING, and WP:INCIVILITY. As I've said above, however, incivility is never justified and should be handled separately from a review to FAOWN. Becsh (talk) 11:27, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Ealdgyth

As someone with a reasonably large number of FA nominations under my belt, and as someone who is mainly concerned with "maintenance" on those articles, rather than working on more nominations, I'd like to chime in on the whole WP:FAOWN aspect. (I've stepped away from the FA process mainly due to time constraints outside wikipedia but also because of some concerns about what the process was focusing on - too much on prose and MOS and not nearly enough on the sources and factual accuracy of the articles)

In general, I don't think I've ever actually invoked WP:FAOWN when dealing with an article I've watchlisted with FA status. Yes, there are often some rather bad edits that get made to FA-status articles. But sometimes they aren't bad edits, but good ones. And sometimes they are just "eh, that's not how *I* would have stated it but it's not wrong and it's not degrading the article, so it can stay". Things that are a "revert more than once on an article" are things like vandalism, gibberish, degrading source-text integrity (i.e. someone inserts a fact into an already sourced sentence where the source does not support the new fact - this is one of the most frequent reasons I have to revert additions on FAs), additions of unsourced text, and POV/extreme puffery concerns. Changing the prose slightly, as long as it doesn't do any of the above, is a "revert once and then discuss on the talk page civily" type of thing, if I even bother to revert. Just having gone through the FA process does not magically make the article perfect. Nor should it set the prose in stone so that it can't ever be changed.

Some of the FA articles I keep an eye on (mostly ones I was responsible for the FA nomination of) have been FAs for a very long time (the oldest of them was made an FA in April 2008), and I've got several dozen of them I'm watching out for. In the almost 18 years of me watching them, I've never been dragged to ANI about non-collaborative editing of them nor have I been reported for 3RR or incivility related to them (or, to be fair, any other article). There are numerous other editors around who are in much the same position wehre they are keeping an eye on lots of FAs without lots of fuss. So it's not just WP:FAOWN that's causing problems... although it may be contributing to allowing a few editors to think they can ignore civility.

Sorry if this is a bit rambly and incoherent... hopefully it was helpful to those asking about FAOWN stuff. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Ceoil

My impression as a long-term friend of SchroCat, who has been invaluable in reviewing many of my articles, is that he allowed himself to become a central locus in the infobox wars of the 2010s, and has thus been targeted by both established accounts and many IPs chipping away, and is now battle-hardened and naturally defensive/suspicious of people randomly turning up on his articles arguing the toss about low value prose changes, which he may believe are orchraseted to bait him; often correctly from what I have seen over the years. In this respect, I would be very much in favour that Dronebogus is added as a party/beligerant.

That said, as somebody very much invested in FA and other review processes, and as a reformed anti-infobox warrior since about 2018, I think FAOWN is cringe. Every challenge should be met on its merits and suspect it arose during the infobox wars so that the same arguments wouldn't have to be repeated time after time. But it is a weak defence in reality, given FAR. In reality, only a tiny minority ever invoke it, wrongly IMO. But this is not Arbcom's remit, nor should SC be seen as representative of the FA community as a whole. Ceoil (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq

Thanks CaptainEek for raising my mentorship suggestion. SchroCat and I have exchanged emails and have agreed that the following arrangement would suit us, if agreed by the Committee.

If there is an issue regarding SchroCat, anyone would be free to suggest referring the matter to me (a ping would usually suffice but my talk is available). SchroCat would be welcome to a first revert and/or response but should desist from further responses to a dispute before receiving my advice. As I will probably be slow in responding, that alone would be useful as a natural brake. If an admin notices a dispute where I haven't yet responded, they might fully protect any article with back-and-forth edits to encourage discussion. I would provide mentorship and attempt to resolve the underlying issue. If necessary (where unwise invective without immediate retraction occurred) I would issue a short block. However, my aim would be to resolve the underlying issue by getting opinions from others. I should disclose that my approach would be in line with my recent comments that can be seen by searching for "Johnuniq" at WT:Ownership of content#Abolish FAOWN and possibly “stewardship” entirely? (permalink). However, I can usually operate with minimal bias. Johnuniq (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering: SchroCat has many people following his edits, usually working with him. They would alert me if they thought a problem was arising. At any rate, if I miss some action I would have to issue a short block if the situation had gone too far. The point would be to have a known supporter of FA developers (me) to lean on SchroCat. This is a proposed experiment, not a ten-years plan. Johnuniq (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by GreenLipstickLesbian

I'd encourage ARBCOM to take this case; the multi-party nature of the dispute has made finding a effective solution difficult, which you can see by looking at LEvalyn's and Toadspike's lists of prior conflict resolution attempts. Problematic behaviour is not confined to Schrocat, neither. While it's not uncommon for editors who overlap so much in interest to often agree and appear in the same disputes, it can be something to look at in closer detail.

These diffs are by no mean exhaustive, as I figure the arbs have enough to read through at this stage, but I believe they point to a long-running pattern of editors personalizing disputes and WP:STONEWALLING changes:

• 2023-06: Schrocat gets into a dispute at Boulton and Park, User:Tim Riley personalizes it (dismal waste of time)
• 2025-03: Tim Riley gets into a dispute at Maurice Ravel Reverting weird changes to agreed FA version. Schrocat then joins in to revert the other editor, accusing them of editwarring, and personalizes the dispute. (casting underhand slurs with that rather unpleasant little post)
• 2025-07: Schrocat gets into a dispute about a photo, against the MOS, Riley and User:Ssilvers personalize it.
• 2025-07: Riley uses AI to "upscale" historic images; Ssilvers and Schrocat join in the dispute & personalize it.
• 2026-01: Riley is brought to AN/I, both Schrocat and FIM personalize it.
• 2026-02,: Schrocat tells others to leave an article (Mud March (suffragists)) alone after getting into a dispute about the lead image, Ssilvers and Riley show up to agree, pointing to the existence of the FA review. (Ssilvers had not edited the article before )
• 2026-02: An editor asks a question about an article, FIM pings Schrocat to mock how rude the other editor was.
• 2026-03: Schrocat gets involved in a dispute, Ssilvers personalizes it. (I cannot imagine how Surtsicna can think that their edit was helpful)

Disclaimer: I've had a previous dispute with Ssilvers before, over their response when somebody requested a CCI on a different Wiki-colleague of theirs for chronic close paraphrasing. .

I also know that some of this behaviour has been condoned -- during Schrocat's recent 3rr block, current arb HJ Mitchell (in their status as an editor, not an admin) explicitly told them I watch all your FAs and I expect Tim does, so don't feel like you're on your own. I can't believe it's possible that Mitchell was condoning WP:TAGTEAMING, but it's easy to read his comment in that fashion, which makes it unclear what behaviour is expected. FIM has also invoked Mitchell's admin status, not his INVOLVED status, in disputes involving Schrocat - so I'm not the only one seeing blurred lines.I'd also like to echo his concerns about DB's conduct here, however. There's no reason for two people to interact like this and I don't think it's fair for either party to expect that to be resolved at AN/I. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 19:08, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Victoria

I'd encourage the committee to accept Johnuniq's offer of mentorship, which I believe will work. The other option is to recognize that at its heart this is another infobox case (per various comments & diffs presented) and as such would have to be broad in scope, would attract lots of evidence, and other parties would need to be added. Victoria (tk) 19:19, 27 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).

• @LEvalyn: You are currently at 368 words, so you have ~132 words left. Do you need 80 words on top of what you have remaining? Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:46, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

SchroCat: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <6/1/1>

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)

  Roy and Vanamonde have both mentioned WP:FAOWN, from different angles, so I'd be interested to hear from anyone else who has input related to this aspect. -- asilvering (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Johnuniq, by my read of your suggestion, this solution would only work in cases where the editor in conflict with SchroCat is aware of the possibility of calling you in. My (admittedly evidence-free) guess here is that this would not be true of a significant portion of disputes. How do you envision this working in those cases? -- asilvering (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, @GreenLipstickLesbian, I didn't take that comment from HJM in response to my block as a reference to tag-teaming to maintain SchroCat's preferred version of the article. What I understood HJM to mean was that others, including himself, had the article watchlisted and would be able to maintain it against the inevitable truly terrible edits that do tend to creep in over time. As Ealdgyth and others have noted, it is quite possible to do this without tag-teaming or incivility. -- asilvering (talk) 21:47, 27 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. Sigh. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:33, 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)

  I want to sincerely thank SchroCat for their very reflective statement. Given the close of the ANI thread, and the extensive prior attempts at resolution (see the statements of Toadspike and LEvalyn), I am a reluctant accept. I should be clear that this is not just to look at SchroCat's behavior, but (at least) Dronebogus, too—given their initial statement with a personal attack, plus the kerfuffle at the ANI thread, plus Dronebogus's previous block for WP:WIKIHOUNDING after a previous warning towards SchroCat, it is clearly at least part of a larger problem. I also agree with Fortuna that Fortuna should be a party. Unfortunately, I don't think this can be handled by motion. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:17, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Ssilvers and Tim riley: do you have comments about GreenLipstickLesbian's statement? Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:06, 27 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)

• Accept - I'm only slightly on the "accept" side of the fence here but the AN/I close, particularly the quote that User:asilvering shared above, puts me here. It's worth noting that filing a case request while an active AN/I discussion about this was ongoing is not ideal because doing so tends to preclude decisive action at those discussions and undermines any claims that the community is unable to handle a given issue. - Aoidh (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

• Very mature of SchroCat to acknowledge his issues. As for the matter of hearing a larger case about FAOWN, I'm not convinced this is the right case to tackle those issues in. Our question is thus the matter of the appropriate sanction. I'm not sure we need a full case do that. The ANI came up with at least one sterling option: an offer of mentorship by Johnuniq. A noble offer, and if John is willing, one we could certainly impose under the aegis of ArbCom. I would also support imposing 1RR by motion if that would resolve this sans case. I guess my question for SchroCat is: do you wish to demand a case and have all the evidence laid out, or would you prefer we keep this short and resolve it by motion? I'm not saying you get to choose, but I'd like to take your opinion into consideration. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:46, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by WhatamIdoing

Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle begins like this:

The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is one of many optional strategies that editors may use to seek consensus. This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy, but it can be useful for identifying objections, keeping discussion moving forward and helping to break deadlocks.

Earlier today, a newer editor put this tag on the page:

This page documents an Arbitration Committe restriction. It describes a hard rule that the arbitration committee can put in place.

This is because ArbCom has adopted the misleading name "Enforced BRD" for a mandatory procedure that has nothing to do with actual WP:BRD beyond the superficial appearance of "If you got reverted, then discuss". We're putting misleading messages on talk pages, like this one:

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this page: You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

and then when someone actually tries to read the bold-faced linked page for more information, they're told that it's optional (emphasis in the original) in the very first sentence.

We need a new name for this restriction. We need to stop sending people off to a page that emphasizes that this is an optional process that is "best used by experienced Wikipedia editors" and may require more diplomacy and skill to use successfully than other methods, and has more potential for failure and that Using BRD in volatile situations is discouraged.

Would ArbCom prefer to choose a non-misleading name, or would they prefer that I start an RFC to have the community rename it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

@theleekycauldron, here's a side-by-side comparison for you. I think you'll see that the similarities are mostly in the name, rather than in the substance.

More information Original BRD, Enforced BRD ...

Differences

	Original BRD	Enforced BRD
Optional?	Y Yes	N No
Defined scope?	Y Yes: Undiscussed edits meant to solve a significant problem	N No: Reversion of or objection to any edit
Requires WP:BOLD edit?	Y Yes	N No
Revert required?	Y Yes	Y/N Not technically, but it's typical
Reverter required to have substantive objections?	Y Yes, or BRD doesn't work	N No
Penalty for re-reverting?	N No, but if you re-revert, you've switched to a non-BRD tactic	Y Yes
Reverted editor required to start the discussion?	N No: "The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD."	Y Yes
Discussion target?	Y Yes: "Discuss your bold edit with the person who reverted it" and "Talk with one or at most two partners at once" (not everyone)	N No
Replies needed?	Y Yes	N No
Discussion time limit?	N None	Y Yes: Minimum 24 hours
Enforcement process?	N None	Y Yes: at WP:AE
Applies to everyone?	N No: "BRD is best used by experienced Wikipedia editors"	Y All editors
Good for CTOPs?	N No: "Using BRD in volatile situations is discouraged."	Y Yes, sole use
Requires skill?	Y Yes: "It may require more diplomacy and skill to use successfully than other methods"	N No
Depends on cooperation from others?	Y Yes: "BRD only works when both bold and reverting editors follow the process."	N No: No response within 24 hours means you can re-revert (unlike the Consensus required restriction).
Edit warring banned	Y Yes	Y Yes
Compatible with WP:EPTALK?	Y Yes	Y Yes
Discretion to choose alternatives?	Y Yes: Editors are encouraged to use different approaches in different situations	Y/N Not allowed as a substitute, but additional approaches can be added on top

Close

WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

@Izno, this should answer your question as well. ArbCom isn't requiring BRD. They are requiring something different that just unfortunately happens to have a very similar name. It would be like merging Java (programming language) and JavaScript: same name, and you can do similar things with them, but they are not the same thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by The Bushranger

...I'm not sure I see the problem being described here. BRD is optional. The arbitration enforcement remedy makes it non-optional. (Also, WAID, I know it wasn't your intent, but the wording of that last sentence really kinda comes across as an ultimatum to Arbcom, you may want to consider rewording it.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:21, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by voorts

@Izno: done.

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

WP:STANDARDSET: Clerk notes

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

WP:STANDARDSET: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Sorry, WAID, I'm not understanding. Is there a difference between the process "enforced BRD" imposes and the process people respect when they choose to follow "normal BRD"? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:17, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

  Also, as I understand it, CONEXEMPT prevents editors from changing the names of ArbCom decisions via RfC. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:20, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

• Why can the community, or whomever, not simply update WP:BRD to describe that sometimes it's not optional, pointing to where and when it might not be? Izno (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
• Please don't start an RfC. That would be a waste of everyone's time. As is this request. Lots of things are optional, and ArbCom can make them mandatory for a given editor in a remedy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:57, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

COIVRT block appeals: Clerk notes

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

Draft motions: COIVRT block appeals

Community discussion

How many COIVRT appeals has ArbCom gotten in the year or so since Template:Uw-upeblock was updated? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks to the work of Izno, we got 14 COIVRT appeals, out of 94 total appeals received. (But most of those appeals are summarily told to appeal on-wiki because their block is out of scope.) Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:28, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster Does "most of those appeals" refer to most of the COIVRT appeals, most of fthe total appeals, or both? Toadspike [Talk] 00:16, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Should've been more clear. Most of the 94 total appeals are out of scope. Most of the COIVRT appeals were heard on the merits (though occasionally we have given non-binding advice to the appellant that they might get a faster response if they appeal onwiki). Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:19, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Is point f intended to expand Arbcom's power over blocks/bans? Or is it just intended to make what already happens more explicitly written down? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 22:30, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Point f is in the current procedures. Izno (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

What ArbCom decides to do is the boring part – the actual power is described at WP:ARBPOL § Scope and responsibilities, footnotes and links omitted:

The Arbitration Committee of the English Wikipedia has the following duties and responsibilities:

1. To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve;
2. To hear appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users;
3. To handle requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools;
4. To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons;
5. To approve and remove access to (i) CheckUser and Oversight tools and (ii) mailing lists maintained by the Arbitration Committee.

So 45dogs, I'm not sure what you mean by "expand"ing ArbCom's power over (reviewing) blocks/bans. That power is already unlimited since at least 2011. A fraction of it is in use. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the status quo— which is basically number one— probably needs to stay. COIVRT blocks by nature involve evidence that cannot be easily talked about publicly, if it all. If someone is being blocked for evidence that was sent to COIVRT but is otherwise public, then the block shouldn’t be marked as a COIVRT block. This isn’t like CU block appeals, which rarely involve delving into non-public technicals; most COIVRT blocks involve some sort of OUTING element or otherwise have a lot of surrounding BEANS context. There’s no real good way to otherwise handle such private evidence outside of Arbcom; unless we get a separate mailing list for COIVRT appeals, one would have to privately talk to an individual COI agent if they wanted to discuss non-public evidence. This can be, and has been, problematic— it lacks transparency and peer input, and can lead to situations where important clarifications on evidence are lost if the involved functionary isn’t around anymore or diverges from the views of other functionaries in a problematic way. There was an incident not too long ago where a functionary publicly warned an editor for COI editing based on a COI ticket; that editor privately talked the warning down with the functionary, and the functionary later left the project. The COI got called into question again, and ended up being unresolved, as no one else had access to the private discussion. There’s some other BEANS reasons for why I don’t think devolving is a good idea, which I think some Arbcom members can figure out… unfortunately, I think this is one of those things that AC will have to handle. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 00:08, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

unless we get a separate mailing list for COIVRT appeals – definitely spitballing here, but maybe there's a place for just having people appeal to paid-en-wp as a new ticket? For all VRT's faults, it does at least check a lot of the boxes you mention (privacy, a permanent archive, the possibility of peer review). I suppose it would need a backstop like "if you don't get a response in 30 days, you can go straight to ArbCom". Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@Moneytrees, I'm surprised to hear you say this, since I've responded to on-wiki unblock requests for your COIVRT or COIVRT/SPI blocks and I'm sure you must have done at least one of mine, and I don't think we had much of a problem. In the event that there is an issue, we've always got the "unsuitable for public discussion" bit handy and can refer unblock requests to arbcom. Personally I prefer HB's #2 option, though I'd change the line to "where members with access to the queue disagree on the interpretation of that evidence or believe the request would be better handled at arbcom" to make that explicit. -- asilvering (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering That is a good point; looking over my UPE blocks, more are for socks of already banned masters than I initially realized. I was more worried about how this would go for more established editors who end up getting blocked (thinking about cases like User:PaulPachad, User:MaskedSinger, User:Jamiebuba and such), and how a case like that might put undue pressure on a VRT agent, but I think your provision would help prevent that from happening. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:26, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

And indeed, one of those three now has an arbcom block and can't be handled by COIVRT anyway. -- asilvering (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Violations of WP:ARBECR

Permission gaming.

Yet another Gaza Genocide move request

Page protection for high risk article

More information talk ...

No longer on MP Valereee (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
2026 Kabul hospital airstrike (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Page protection: This is an article currently displayed on the main page about a hospital being airstriked leading to mass civilian casualties, and it's part of a conflict taking place in a region designated as a contentious topic area (WP:CT/SA). If this isn't high risk I'm not sure what is. ―Maltazarian (talk${\displaystyle \lor }$investigate) 09:51, 19 March 2026 (UTC) I've got it watchlisted but it actually seems to be fine at the moment. We can always revisit this if there are serious issues. Black Kite (talk) 09:53, 19 March 2026 (UTC) Sounds good, as long as someone is monitoring it. ―Maltazarian (talk${\displaystyle \lor }$investigate) 10:11, 19 March 2026 (UTC) @Maltazarian, if you believe there are urgent issues that haven't been seen, you can also take them to WP:ANI for help. Valereee (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2026 (UTC) I'm aware, but my request was not a response to any urgent issue; it was meant as a heads up. ―Maltazarian (talk${\displaystyle \lor }$investigate) 22:36, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Close

Najibuddaulah1752 (again)

Request concerning Rejoy2003

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

SerChevalerie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:26, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Rejoy2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#User sanctions (CT/SA)

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 17 March 2026 Added "Citizenship: Indian (from 1961)" on Premanand Lotlikar, in direct violation of their sanction to not add "Indian and/or Portuguese nationality designations". Note that this is WP:OR.
2. 18 March 2026 Same behaviour on M. Boyer
3. 16 March 2026 Same behaviour on Maestro Josinho
4. 15 March 2026 Same behaviour on Krishna Moyo
5. 11 March 2026 Added info on Portuguese citizenship at JoeGoaUk

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Special:Diff/1326739812 User has an active sanction against them

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

• Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict at Special:Diff/1326739812 by Rosguill (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

SerChevalerie's statement contains 776 words and is within 10% of the 775-word limit.

Y Extension granted to 775 words.

User has been warned multiple times of this behaviour. I was hoping that this would stop after the sanctions, but this has unfortunately continued. I am also concerned about WP:BLP issues at JoeGoaUk, previously discussed at Talk:JoeGoaUk/Archive 1.

I understand that the timing of this may seem so but this is an issue that I have previously brought up with the user multiple times on each respective page, to which they have never responded positively. I had hoped that this behaviour would improve after the sanctions but here we are, and my main concern here is the WP:OR. Rest assured, I am here to build an encyclopedia and do not intend any further action against the user if they keep away from the nationality/citizenship edits in this topic area as suggested. I would be even happier if they simply understand where they are going wrong and maybe even get the sanctions reverted. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2026 (UTC) Please comment in your own section. Valereee (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering, @Black Kite and @Rosguill, I do not wish for an IBAN since we are both active editors of WP:GOA, which is already very small. As stated above, I am willing to settle my differences with the user. As previously discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1179#Constantly_being_stalked_by_User:SerChevalerie, this was not the user's first attempt at getting me banned, and we were both told that we cannot get the other editor banned from the WikiProject. However, I am willing to offer an olive branch here to continue our respective work in this small topic area. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Asilvering, my olive branch is simple: I am tired of every edit of mine being assumed to be in bad faith, leading to a retaliation and another forum complaint. @Rejoy2003 and I are both interested in a topic area and all I ask is that they are willing to accept that we both are here to build an encyclopedia and follow what advice has been given to them by not just me but others (on this AE thread and the above linked ANI thread). Why the WP:COI complaints were a shock to me is because both of us were actively editing pages like that of Frederick Noronha, our mentor in this common Wikipedia user group, before one-sided evidence was submitted that only I have the COI. As was pointed out at ANI, we are the only two editors on the project, but not every disagreement must lead to an escalation, and I am willing to coordinate on the Talk page of every such article in case of a disagreement. From my end I have always maintained that they have contributed in the creation of a large number of pages on Wikipedia and am willing to hear them out about their concerns with my editing and work upon those. SerChevalerie (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Rejoy2003, I am now presenting an olive branch: I definitely do not want either of us to get blocked, and I am willing to fix my past problematic behaviour. I made my comments because getting another editor from the project banned is acting in bad faith, but I'm willing to move past this. Thanks. SerChevalerie (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Asilvering, I am at my word limit here. May I request for a word limit increase? SerChevalerie (talk) 07:41, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Timeline:

1. Special:Diff/1341061618: I clean up Viresh Borkar, who is in the news

2. Special:Diff/1341073352: User retaliates, removing sourced content on Gerald Pereira with no explanation. I then restore content; I have since declared my COI here.

3. Special:Diff/1341487738: User files WP:ARC against me (rejected)

4. User files COIVRT against me; I am now unblocked.

When the both of us are part of WP:GOA, which Viresh Borkar comes under, why did the user choose to escalate? This felt like getting me banned in bad faith, out of retaliation. (I reiterate: I am willing to let this go.) SerChevalerie (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Requesting another 50 words. SerChevalerie (talk) 03:19, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Accepted, @Valereee and @Vanamonde93. I care more about the project, and agree to stay away from their edits, as suggested instead of IBAN. Request that @Rejoy2003 reconsider; we may disagree but we both care about the project, deeply so. Also, happy with their positive behaviour here wrt TBAN. SerChevalerie (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1344250631

Discussion concerning Rejoy2003

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Rejoy2003

  Rejoy2003's statement contains 797 words and complies with the 800-word limit.

Y Extension granted to 800 words.

The sanction was placed because I advocated for Portuguese nationality at BD in its lead section. And the sanction explicitly states "from Indian and/or Portuguese nationality designations". Emphasis should be made on "Nationality designations". The OP has plainly manipulated with the above examples wherein I simply stated the obvious there which was "citizenship" of the subject's country of birth as can be seen at Premanand Lotlikar and in no means advocated for pushed for Portuguese nationality which was a violation of WP:OR, which I completely understand now.Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 10:56, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• @Black Kite I am a little confused. I had pushed for Portuguese nationality on Goans born and dead before 1961 it was deemed as textbook OR, which I was completely unaware of. But how can we ignore when multiple reliable sources for example Lotlikar literally say he is "Indian". I haven't added anything new from my side, it was simply in coordination with Indian nationality law which states Goans were designated as Indians as soon as the annexation took place in 1961. Or is it still WP:OR despite not advocating for other nationalities here? Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 11:40, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  Black Kite I agree with you, if source says Indian he is Indian. I didn't do these edits in bad faith, if you were to ask why what's the motive for it? I merely used the same reference to Mahatma Gandhi. Now I know the "nationality" parameters have been depreciated if I am not wrong it must be after my sanction was placed last year in December. If you had seen on Gandhi's article it said in the citizenship parameter British Raj (until 1947), Dominion of India (from 1947). Now how sure are we that there were references that actually said that? because the last time I checked it was unreferenced. And the topic ban was made mainly because I pushed for Portuguese nationality confused about how WP:OR works around these corners. And I would be happy to learn more because I have more questions regarding nationality and Goans. I know I should had atleast asked an admin before adding the years but I am willing to fix this problem. I tried to appeal before but still had questions with how these nationalities work on Wikipedia , but unfortunately this editor didn't wanted to answer more of my questions. Until later when I was busy in this to which this Arb request was filed in the first place as a reaction. I am open to learning more on these nationality and citizenship issues and editing constructively, perhaps you could help me with this?Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 12:10, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  Black Kite I want to learn more about this to be really honest as many of my questions have been unanswered. But at this point, like you have said I think I should clearly stay away from any aspects of nationality and citizenship areas and I would like to do that so. Speaking about SerChevalerie, as many of us are aware this is a retributive filing taken as a revenge to which the filler was blocked. I completely disagree to the statements made by them. FN did NOT serve as my mentor nor have I ever met this person in real life nor do I know much about him, in contrast to SC, WP:COIVRT is aware. The same goes with SerChevalerie, I never met this person as well. The Wikipedians Goa User Group they are talking about is a whatsapp group I was part of something along the lines of "Wikipedians of Goa". I never met anyone from there nor do I know anyone personally. Well SC statements above may seem "peaceful", I rather believe it is to save face for a re-block. I would like to mention he has advocated to kick me out of WP:GOA also showing WP:OWN behavior as evident here where he stated I have "acted in bad faith against other editors." The same can be seen here where he passed personal attacks on me stating "I cannot be trusted and actually been working against the interests of our group". He then retracted his statements later . SerChevalerie passing such statements within hours of getting unblocked clearly seems like for revenge against me. I find this actions to be deeply disturbing when I have given my heart and soul to WP:GOA. I just cant let such personal attacks slide.Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 06:21, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  GP is on my watchlist. I edit fast and across many Goan articles and tend not to leave edit summaries usually, I did here . I find the same article to be inflated and pushed everywhere obviously because of SC's COI and have evidence for it if anyone needs. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 06:32, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

  Two-way iban, me okay. Reoccurring problem. Can't let this pass . Stalking remarks? Willing to share report to @Asilvering who started. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 17:26, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93 I am looking for a one-way iban, given their past circumstances. Willing to carry the can for a two-way for Goa. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 07:55, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Result concerning Rejoy2003

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Well, that appears to be a very obvious breach of the sanction imposed. I'd be interested to see the rationale for it. Black Kite (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• Rejoy2003 There are a number of issues here. Firstly, your sanction was "broadly construed" and I am sure that most people would agree that this would include citizenship designations. Secondly, part of the issue for which you were sanctioned was adding this material without any sources, and I see this is still happening in some of these cases. Thirdly, I'm looking at the example Premanand Lotlikar who was 7 years old when India invaded Goa. I think we'd need a source to say he immediately became an Indian citizen at this precise moment? Black Kite (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• If multiple reliable sources say that Lotlikar has Indian citizenship then it shouldn't be difficult to add them. But the main issue here is that you shouldn't be messing with these descriptors, that was the whole point of the topic ban. Black Kite (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• Rejoy2003 I think you just need to agree to stay away from nationality/citizenship edits in this topic area. This does not bar you from other edits about Goa and its people. Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• This is very clearly a retributive filing and I am contemplating reblocking the filer. We may need to set a two-way iban here. -- asilvering (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• Indeed it is, but it is not without merit. I have suggested to Rejoy2003 above that they just need to keep away from the area and we'll be good. Pinging Rosguill as the admin that performed the original topic ban. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  This looks like a clear topic ban violation to me. I don't immediately see the basis for calling the filing retributive, asilvering, Black Kite, what's leading you to that conclusion? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:22, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• I am assuming it is because of this edit which led to the filer's COI block. Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  Ah, thanks. I think particularly the exchange of 1, 2, followed by this filing is pretty clear-cut retaliation, although Rejoy2003's response vis-a-vis the COI concern also seems excessively rude, so I feel a bit more sympathetic to SerChevalerie given the circumstances. If there is an IBAN to be imposed, two-way does seem appropriate. Beyond that, Rejoy2003's argument that citizenship is somehow distinct from nationality falls flat--while they're not synonymous, they are definitely related, and thus covered by the topic ban's broadly construed provision. Taken together with their recent attempt to appeal their sanction to me, which quickly devolved into wikilawyering and failing to get the point, I'm left favoring a block and/or a broadening of the sanction, as the current scope is clearly not sufficient for addressing disruption related to nationality. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:18, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  Diff 2 is the same as 1, I think you probably meant this?

  The discussion on your user is dismaying. "Help me understand" is basically a more polite "I think you're wrong and will keep questioning until I get the answer I want". Valereee (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@SerChevalerie, I agree that a mutual iban would be quite difficult. This EIA is huge: . But to my understanding, this dispute between you has been going on for some time. You were trading COI notices more than a year ago already. What would this olive branch look like? Why would @Rejoy2003 accept it? And what olive branch would you need from them? -- asilvering (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@SerChevalerie, can you give us a bit more context about I made my comments because getting another editor from the project banned is acting in bad faith, please? -- asilvering (talk) 07:29, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Rejoy2003, you're already pretty far over. Go ahead and take an extension to 800 words for now. -- asilvering (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Rejoy2003, they are under no obligation to describe the exact terms of their relationship with the COI topics. They have declared the COI, and that is enough. -- asilvering (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@SerChevalerie, go for it. -- asilvering (talk) 03:35, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@Rejoy2003, a one-way is not on the table. You have been harassing SerChevalerie. I understand you to have also been harassed to at least some extent, but that doesn't give you a free pass to the same. -- asilvering (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm kind of wondering how much of that EIA is from these editors following one another around? In general I dislike Ibans, but I think these two editors are going to have to decide what's more important to them:

1. Working in the topic
2. Policing the other editor's work in the topic

I'd highly suggest the two of them start behaving as if an Iban is the next stop for them, because if they don't end up with one from this, it probably is. Unless you see something that is actually harmful to the project -- BLP vios, copyright vios, for instance -- leave the other editor's edits alone. Stop checking each others' work. Valereee (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• SerChevalerie, you can take another 100 words. Valereee (talk) 10:34, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Rejoy2003, what is it that you need it for? You can take 25 words to explain. (Also you don't need to get that permission from me, every worker here is likely watching on and off.) Valereee (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Rejoy2003, well, for beginners, start leaving useful edit summaries consistently. You are working in an area where you have ongoing friction with another editor. Stop trying to work fast and instead work smart: edit summaries are at least as important as the edits, especially in cases where you know another editor may disagree with you. And even the edit summaries you mention leaving such as "(irr)" when removing an entire section don't really explain anything. Irrelevant, I assume? Edit summaries are supposed to explain your thinking to other editors. Valereee (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• The filing may be retaliatory but the TBAN violation is pretty clear cut. I am amenable to warning Rejoy2003 rather than blocking in the expectation that they will avoid further edits about Indian and Portuguese nationality or citizenship. I find the interaction history of these users quite concerning. The internal functioning of a group seeking affiliate status is outside our remit, but this does not make me hopeful that these editors will be able to get along. An IBAN is going to be difficult, but unless both editors are willing to make peace, it seems to be needed. Both editors should read the terms of such a sanction: it will severely restrict your ability to edit pages to which the other editor has been a major contributor. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Request concerning Davefelmer

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Paprikaiser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:16, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Davefelmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 24 January 2026 Davefelmer introduces content to the Zionism article.
2. 12 February 2026 I partially revert the new content, challenging it.
3. 13 February 2026 Davefelmer restores the content, claiming it is "longstanding".
4. 14 March 2026 I revert the content again following the conclusion of the previous AE proceedings on 9 March.
5. 15 March 2026 (post-warning violation) Davefelmer restores the content again, claiming the reverter is the one who must seek consensus.
6. 17 March 2026 TarnishedPath reverts Davefelmer's addition to the pre-existing version.
7. 17 March 2026 Davefelmer restores the content yet again.
8. 17 March 2026 Davefelmer self-reverts after multiple editors indicated he was at fault and an AE report is being considered.
9. 17 March 2026 (immediate follow-up) Davefelmer attempts to modify the disputed content again.

This request follows a 9 March 2026 warning issued to Davefelmer for ARBPIA violations, including edit warring and failure to comply with consensus-required restrictions. Since that warning, the same pattern of disruptive conduct has resumed. He continues to characterize his January 2026 additions as "longstanding" because a similar version existed in the article nearly two years ago (more details here); under the current restrictions placed in the Zionism article, such material is treated as a bold edit and, once challenged, requires talk-page consensus before reinstatement.

Despite the warning, Davefelmer repeatedly restored challenged content, improperly shifting the burden of consensus onto the reverting editor in contravention of WP:ONUS. After TarnishedPath reverted the article to the prior stable version on 17 March, Davefelmer immediately restored his preferred version. His subsequent attempt to reinsert a slightly altered version of the same text, immediately after a compelled self-revert that appears to have been made only under the prospect of AE action, suggests he is circumventing the 1RR and consensus-required restrictions rather than a good-faith effort to comply with them.

Throughout this process, he has remained dismissive of applicable policies, referring to concerns as "whining" and framing enforcement as an attempt to "establish some kind of authority", rather than engaging with the substance of the restrictions.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 3 September 2015: Blocked for 3 days for sockpuppetry
2. 27 September 2015: Blocked indefinitely for edit warring (appealed successfully the following month)
3. 18 January 2021: Blocked for a month for edit warring
4. 4 September 2024: Blocked for 2 weeks for edit warring
5. 9 March 2026: Logged warning for edit warring and incivility in ARBPIA

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 8 May 2025
• Notified about WP:1RR and WP:CRP regarding the Zionism article on numerous occasions: 28 January 2026 by @M.Bitton, 29 January 2026 by @Smallangryplanet, 1 February 2026 by @TarnishedPath, 13 February 2026 by me, 17 March 2026 by @Cinaroot.
• Also notified by @إيان regarding edit warring in another article in the topic (Gaza war) on 22 February 2026.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

As noted by administrators in the previous case, Davefelmer "pointedly avoided any explicit admission of his violations". His actions on 15 March, followed by dismissive comments and the immediate attempt to reinsert a variation of the disputed text on 17 March, reinforce a continued refusal to acknowledge and adhere to the rules governing this topic area. Given that a formal warning has not curtailed the edit warring or the repeated attempts to shift the burden of consensus, stronger sanctions may now be warranted. I therefore request consideration of a more stringent remedy, such as an ARBPIA topic ban, to prevent further disruption. Paprikaiser (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@Valereee Respectfully, how does this differ from the assertion that Davefelmer made less than a month ago, which was not upheld after two weeks? I do not see any indication of an acknowledgement of fault. Instead, Davefelmer has continued with the personal attacks, which I will not engage with, but which should not be tolerated, particularly given prior administrative warnings regarding civility. Paprikaiser (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@Valereee I was referring to comments made toward me in the talk page discussion (link) and in the statement on this case. My concern is that Davefelmer has moved away from discussing the 1R/consensus rules and has instead transitioned into personal disparagement. In the linked talk page discussion, he characterized my previous attempt at dispute resolution as "whining" and accused me of "trying to establish some kind of authority". In his statement on this case, he continues this pattern by describing my interpretation of the edits as "insane" and "nonsensical", while labeling my filing as a "shameless and transparent attempt" to stop his editing. He further characterizes the filing as "AE baiting" and a "frivolous complaint". I believe these comments go beyond a simple disagreement and demonstrate a battleground mentality.

@Newslinger @Vanamonde93, I see now that I inadvertently reverted Davefelmer's edit to my prior version rather than the stable consensus one, which instead of By the beginning of the 20th century, most leaders of the Zionist movement associated this national revival with the colonization of Palestine, then under Ottoman rule. should have said The arrival of Zionist settlers to Palestine during this period is widely seen as the start of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. This was not my intention, and if I had been made aware of this, I would have immediately corrected it, but Davefelmer reverted me again to restore his challenged content instead. Paprikaiser (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

AE notification

Discussion concerning Davefelmer

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Davefelmer

  Davefelmer's statement contains 750 words and complies with the 750-word limit.

Y Extension granted to 750 words.

This is WP:HARASSMENT. It is a carbon copy of an AE request that was just filed and closed against me https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1342508530#Davefelmer where Paprikaiser himself commented the exact same thing and demanded the exact same total topic ban. He just added a few edits from last week, where Paprikaiser made a revert claiming it was related to the AE when it wasn't. I agreed to restore his version and develop consensus on talk where we've been for days now, only for Paprikaiser to stop responding and file here. The last edit he references from March 17 is insane. This is content that he added for the first time during what he said was a revert, which I cleaned up without reverting because it violates a previous consensus established on that article talkpage (and other editors on the page have corrected as well), and he's now suggesting that's a 1R violation! This is my problem with the edits, his February 12 'revert' of my January 24 edit doesn't restore the content or even section to what it was before my change, and it adds brand new content that wasn't there before. Regardless I agreed to seek consensus for what he claims is the disputed content.

This is a shameless and transparent attempt to stop me from editing content that he doesn't like. We already had a discussion about the topic in question on my talkpage more than 1 month ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Davefelmer#Zionism where Paprikaiser stopped replying before showing up at arbitration demanding a topic ban, now despite my skepticism I agree to revert to his version and seek consensus with him on the article talkpage, he stops replying, and shows up again at arbitration days later demanding a topic ban. I am not necessarily asking for WP:BOOMERANG to be considered, but something should be done to stop this AE baiting. Davefelmer (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Response to asilvering (talk) - Anyone can make a complaint about anything, but it’s a frivolous complaint that should be viewed on the merits. It concerns a discussion inactive for half a week now where I already agreed to self-revert. His central claim that my last March 17 edit (not even a revert) constitutes a 1R violation is nonsensical any way you look at it.

Furthermore, after self-reverting, I brought the discussion to the article talkpage and directly engaged with him to find a compromise. He stopped answering, and then days later came to AE demanding a ban. Above I link to a thread where we discussed the same content on my talkpage over a month ago where he stopped replying too, then came to AE demanding the same ban. It shows, I think, a relatively clear picture where Paprikaiser doesn’t really want to discuss the content itself but rather try and restrict me from making changes in places he doesn’t like. I also did not explicitly call for action re Boomerang, I’m more so expressing concern with how eager this editor is to run to arbitration and demand I be banned. Davefelmer (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Response to Vanamonde93 (talk) - This is an inaccurate framing. The 'colonization of Palestine' line didn't exist at all there and was first added by Paprikaiser on February 12. When it was changed, he had to get consensus to use it per the rules of the page. This is doubly the case because it also contradicted an actual consensus established on the article talkpage for how to frame colonization, seen in Section 1 here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=1338987651. Other editors pointed this out and have since changed Paprikaiser's wording themselves on the page. The only disputed content here was the Kibbutz Galuyot line which I self-reverted.

I also question your 'history of sanctions' comment as there's been 1 in half a decade. And the warning was just now. I believe I deserve more than a week to show I can handle the page. If a month from now there's still feuding I'll agree to step away from editing on the page. How's that? Davefelmer (talk) 06:06, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Response to Valereee (talk) - I don't think that, thought I was being constructive. Fact is I reverted the disputed content and Vanamonde93 (talk)'s assertion that editing the 'colonization of' language violates the consensus rule is incorrect as I show above it's already subject to an article talkpage consensus that I was part of! Other editors agreed and have already reverted Paprikaiser's wording there on the article page.

These two things are the entire substance of the dispute. Davefelmer (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@Valereee (talk), I never said edit-warring is ok if supported by consensus. And I confirm I am happy to engage on talk exactly as you lay out at bottom and be extra cautious. Davefelmer (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@Valereee (talk) Yes, I think I can handle it now. Davefelmer (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Result concerning Davefelmer

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• Davefelmer, if an editor is able to make the exact same kind of complaint about you, with fresh diffs, less than two weeks after you received a formal warning, that's a problem, not something that ought to result in a boomerang. -- asilvering (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Davefelmer, you're past your word limit already, so I removed your comment. -- asilvering (talk) 04:13, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

  Extension granted, to an absolute maximum of 750. If you run through all those, you're done. -- asilvering (talk) 05:03, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

• Davefelmer's latest edit is absolutely a partial revert of what came before, and as such this is both a 1RR violation and a CRP violation. Given the history of sanctions and warning, some action is warranted here, particularly as Davefelmer does not appear to understand that their conduct is falling short of expectations. I wonder if a page-block from Zionism is sufficient. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  The removal of "colonization of" is present in each of these diffs: , , . Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:16, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Davefelmer, if you think you need another month to learn to abide by an editing restriction in a topic you received a logged warning for (Davefelmer is warned for conduct that falls short of behavioral expectations in the Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic, including uncivil communication related to his edit warring) just weeks ago, you'd probably be better off with a page block. A page block from Zionism would allow you to continue to discuss on the article talk page, which if you can do productively and nondisruptively, will show other editors that you understand and will follow the restrictions, after which you can appeal the page block. If OTOH you go back and start editing Zionism the way you have been and we end up here again over a third valid complaint, workers here may assume you simply are incapable of working in this topic. Valereee (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

  Editor still thinks edit-warring is okay if it's supported by consensus. I'll support a pblock at Zionism while this editor learns how to navigate one of the most contentious articles on the entire project. Valereee (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Davefelmer, you're out of words, so if you need to write more, you need to strike out anything extraneous (and FFR: learn to write short; if you don't need hundreds of words in your opening statement, edit out as much as you can before publishing).

  Your assertion that the assertion that editing the 'colonization of' language violates the consensus rule is incorrect as I show above it's already subject to an article talkpage consensus is incorrect; thinking you're right doesn't allow you to edit war.

  The way to handle editors reverting you after you've added what you perceive as consensus is to let someone else handle that change. Post at talk what you're planning to change before you change it and ask for confirmation, pinging anyone who'd been disagreeing if necessary to get them back to the discussion. If necessary, ask for a formal close on the discussion. Valereee (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

  So you're saying you believe you understand the policy now and you'll take the chance that if you still are misunderstanding, edit war again in PIA, and end up back here, you'll likely be tbanned from the entire topic, a tban that cannot be lifted by a single admin but needs to be lifted either here, at Arbcom, or by the community? With the knowledge that tbans are really hard and often result in an eventual indef from the entire project, and that dozens of other editors will be waiting to gotcha? That still sounds better than a pblock from a single article? Valereee (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  All right. Support a logged warning, willing to be persuaded that's not enough but I'm leaning toward letting this editor prove he now understands and will comply. Valereee (talk) 07:42, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Sennecaster, I tend to dislike timed restrictions, which editors can just wait out. I know it's common for edit-warring, though. If that's what we can agree on, I'll go along. Valereee (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Paprikaiser, there's been further incivility since the first warning? Sorry if I'm staring right at it, is it in one of your diffs? Valereee (talk) 13:35, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  Got it. I have to agree that comments about "whining" while probably not actionable are less than ideal, especially at a CT. I'm a little less concerned about the language here, people get upset when they're dragged to a noticeboard and sometimes write hyperbolically, but given the logged warning about incivility so recently, again not ideal. Valereee (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: Since my comment from the previous enforcement request was quoted, I am making a correction for a non-quoted part of the comment: "editor who pointed out one of these violations to him" should be changed to "editor who pointed out his edit warring". — Newslinger talk 09:11, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Noting for the record that the correct link to diff #8 is Special:Diff/1343935587. In the filing, diff #8 has the same link as diff #7. — Newslinger talk 23:44, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• I'm not sure about a logged warning. If Davefelmer doesn't immediately change behavior basically, we're going to be back here with more disruption even if it's to a lesser degree. A timed pageblock from Zionism sounds like the happy medium. Maybe 1 month would be good? I acknowledge the commitment to do better here, but it's hard to fully believe that this will be the end of disruption immediately with the logged warning being issued less than a month ago. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:23, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  Vanamonde's suggestion of making a partial block appealable in a month sounds like a reasonable compromise between Valereee's concern of waiting out a block and Newslinger's own concerns around an indefinite pblock given the CRP violation by Paprikaiser. The logged warning for Paprikaiser also makes sense. In all honesty, I didn't consider people waiting out timed blocks, I'll make sure to remember in the future. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:11, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• @Paprikaiser: In your 12 February edit (diff #2), in addition to partially reverting Davefelmer's 24 January edit (diff #1), you also introduced the phrasing "By the beginning of the 20th century, most leaders of the Zionist movement associated this national revival with the colonization of Palestine, then under Ottoman rule." Davefelmer reverted diff #2 on 13 February (diff #3), so your restoration of that content on 14 March (diff #4) is a violation of the consensus required provision (CRP).
  @Davefelmer: Your 13 February edit (diff #3) not only reverted the content Paprikaiser introduced in 12 February (diff #2), but also reintroduced the content you previously added in 24 February (diff #1) which Paprikaiser had reverted in diff #2. Thus, your 13 February edit (diff #3), 15 March edit (diff #5), and first listed 17 March edit (diff #7) are all CRP violations. As you reverted diff #7 in diff #8, I am assigning less weight to the third violation, but that still leaves two fully weighted CRP violations. — Newslinger talk 20:01, 24 March 2026 (UTC); fixed link to diff #8 23:44, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  Based on this, I support a logged warning for Paprikaiser. In light of Davefelmer's previous logged warning, I support either a logged warning or a timed partial block from the Zionism article for Davefelmer. It is not permissible to violate a page restriction while attempting to enforce the same restriction (or any other policy or restriction) for someone else's edit. This enforcement request could have been avoided if both editors challenged each other's CRP violations without introducing their own contested content at the same time. — Newslinger talk 20:09, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  Based on that analysis I support a logged warning for Paprikaiser. I am not generally a supporter of timed blocks in cases where the behavior is not attributable to editing in the heat of the moment; I would prefer an indefinite page block appealable in a month. But I won't stand in the way if there is consensus for a timed block. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  I would be more supportive of an indefinite partial block if there were no negative findings for Paprikaiser, but I am not sure about that outcome in the current case. — Newslinger talk 21:42, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Newslinger, you're thinking the fact you're also seeing bad behavior on the side of Pk should lessen the restriction on Df? I'm willing to be persuaded, but what's your thinking? Valereee (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  When two editors under discussion violate the same policy or restriction in a dispute, I will typically consider a set of actions that maintains parity for both editors to minimize the amount of benefit either of the editors can receive from the outcome, because I do not believe it should be possible for either editor to gain an advantage in the content dispute by litigating the conduct aspects when both editors are at fault.

  This situation is not quite equal for both parties, because Davefelmer has one additional CRP violation that was not self-reverted, so I am supporting a partial block for Davefelmer: I support the one-month partial block, and I am neutral on the indefinite partial block (regardless of when it can be appealed). For parity, I would also support a second logged warning for Davefelmer as an alternative to the partial block to match the logged warning for Paprikaiser, although I understand this is unlikely to gain consensus here.​ — Newslinger talk 14:59, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Request concerning Some1

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ethiopian Epic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:49, 22 March 2026 (UTC)