Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

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

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)

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)

SchroCat: Clerk notes

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

SchroCat: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <3/0/1>

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)

• I feel similarly to asilvering. If the thread closes with a referral to ArbCom, or with otherwise inconclusive results, I'd be open to hearing a case. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:37, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• Accept, per leek. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• If we take a case, I think Dronebogus is a natural inclusion as party. Izno (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  Definitely open to this, although we may need to workshop scope a bit. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:57, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  ARBINFOBOX2?! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  is it considered unprofessional behaviour to trout your fellow arbs at a case filing, asking for a friend -- asilvering (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2026 (UTC)