Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Behaviour on this page: This page is for discussing announcements relating to the Arbitration Committee. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of arbitration decisions are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchroCat closed

Original announcement

There's currently still a section Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchroCat#Final decision (none_yet) on the case page. William Avery (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Resolved. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 14:08, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I genuinely don't know how the square the votes on the respective indefs without coming to the conclusion that Being Right and Focusing On Content is enough. Parabolist (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

My read (as a recused arb, so looking in from the outside rather than explaining from the inside) is that the various restrictions are intended to refocus SC on his content work, which we want to keep, and guard against the conduct we don't want. And that a substantial but time-limited ban makes it clear that there are consequences that can't be avoided by waiting a few days or a friendly admin unblocking you and that the restrictions that will be in force when he returns are a last-chance saloon. It's unfortunate for Dronebogus that he got caught in the crossfire but I don't think a fifth restriction would have turned him into a productive editor. YMMV. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:20, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Well yes. The fact that one party gets "restrictions [...] intended to refocus SC on his content work", to me, indicates that Focusing On Content Is Enough (to get you bespoke restrictions instead of an indef.) By their own admission, some arbs seemed to think the chance of recidivism by both parties was incredibly high, enough to be nearly inevitable, but worked much harder to make sure the prolific content editor had a way to stay onsite. I attach no moral valence to this, and it's certainly not a defense of Dronebogus, it just seems to fly in the face of the principles they simultaneously voted on. Parabolist (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Well yes, we're a goal-oriented community. I would hope that ArbCom and the community would work to keep someone doing good work that supports our goal while curbing disruption they cause (this of course requires the problem editor to want to curb the disruption, as I hope SC does). Dronebogus was not a troll or a vandal here to tear down everything we've built, but if we boxed him into a corner where he wasn't getting into silly fights he still (in my opinion) was not going to meaningfully contribute to our goal.

These are actually good examples of opposite problems that goal-oriented communities face—what do with members who a) don't contribute to the goal but aren't (intentionally) harming it or b) contribute heavily to the goal but cause problems. This won't be the last case like this that ArbCom has to wrestle with. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:54, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Harry, I had been awaiting your comments at the PD talk page. Well, the outcome, i.e. final decisions, was hardly surprising, considering the nature and other aspects of the whole case.

Well, hardly surprised that stuff regarding drive-by filings weren't addressed. Considering that Maghreb case was also ongoing and the filing party's apology in the Evidence talk page, I guess that's understandable.

What's more surprising, Harry, was your (implicit?) silence-is-golden approach there... Probably not that "surprising", but... (don't know how else to describe this except... "subtle"?). Anyways, can't help wonder what the odds of drive-by requests → full case have been... and drive-by requests → motion (in lieu of full case) and how both cases scenarios will be after this. George Ho (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2026 (UTC); modified, 19:03, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Even as someone who supports his indef, I think describing Dronebogus as an editor who could not "meaningfully contribute to our goal" is why you were unable to see the problem with Schrocats edits, respectfully. He wasn't as prolific or as decorated, but denying that Dronebogus' gnoming wasn't contributing to the goal of the wiki is the kind of arrogance that drove a lot of the sanctionable conduct from the other parties. And that's really all I have to say on that front. Parabolist (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

There is a view that is, to a greater or lesser extent, held by quite a lot of featured content writers that writing good or featured content is the pinnacle of contribution to the encyclopaedia and those who engage in it are the elite class (for want of a better term). As an arb and vandal fighter as well as featured content writer, Harry is well aware that featured content is not the only way to add value to the project but there is still sometimes a slight hint of "content writers are more valuable than gnomes". Thryduulf (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

As the Arbs noted, Dronebogus had a habit of taking their show to a wider audience when they got topic-banned. Much like with BHG, Ryulong, and Δ, recidivism is a very good way to get ArbCom to consider 86'ing you off the site. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 18:24, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think Ryulong is a good example of that, since that case was Arbcom actively supporting harassment of Wikipedia editors by outside groups and then, after the fact, having some arbs say "well, we can't really consider off-wiki evidence" and other arbs saying "wait, what are you talking about, of course we do". And then Arbcom largely as a whole blaming the community for not preventing the harassment themselves or being able to psychically tell what private evidence has been sent to them. The Gamergate case remains the perfect example even over a decade later of the absolute failings of Arbcom as an institution. But at least the community was able to after the fact, no thanks to Arbcom, deal with the articles in question despite ongoing heavy harassment and doxing. Silverseren^C 18:29, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Ryulong did actually have a prior case which centred around doxxing, both him and a rival doing it towards each other. Just because he's only in the hock for stealing bread instead of murder in GG doesn't make him completely faultless. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 18:37, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I was there so I can say with absolute confidence that SS's comment is a huge oversimplification. Ryulong suffered some awful harassment that I wouldn't for a moment want to diminish (I did a lot of oversighting back then, for the record). But he was also belligerent, uncommunicative and incapable of distinguishing good-faith criticism from harassment. Given his history, which included a temporary siteban from a previous case, a ban was inevitable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:03, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

And yet the real world impact of that case's decision was it showing the GGers that their harassment of editors off-wiki, combined with using the sealion strategy on-wiki, and causing the editors to get angry and upset about it on-wiki is a successful strategy. And their immediate response to the case result was to draw up plans for harassing the other main editors in the topic area, which I also pointed out in the discussion back then. And the response, as usual, was "but it's off-wiki". Silverseren^C 19:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Hmm.... Gamergate case and SchroCat case: tag-teaming and civility. Difference? Very, very huge circus (not to mention media) and huge gender gapping displayed (Gamergate); single user and certain several individuals involved with him (SchroCat). Perhaps I may have understood Silverseren's (implicit?) bitterness toward ArbCom. George Ho (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

To be fair, the Ryulong siteban was far and away the most criticised aspect of GG. I even thought that Ryulong got screwed back then. But since I started my Arbitration-related projects and had a good look at Ryulong's prior case, I've concluded the only thing inappropriate about Ryulong's siteban in GG is the optics. Yes, he was harassed, but there were serious issues with Ryulong's conduct in RL (centred on WP:WikiProject Tokusatsu) that continued into GG (centred on gender-related disputes), and given the locus of GG looks very similar to the locus of RL there was no chance Ryulong was coming out the other side of GG with anything less than a siteban. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 04:53, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

@Parabolist I raised a similar sentiment and TLC left a thoughtful reply on why, for her, it's not sending those messages. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I guess it depends on whether you think "Focusing on Content is enough" and "Focusing on Content is not enough" are the only two options. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm thinking that, as a matter of conduct, being right is not enough, and that's independent of one's content abilities. But it's not only reasonable, but appropriate, to consider the potential for benefit to content building when deciding on sanctions. So I can agree with the decision that a more limited sanction makes sense for someone who does very good content work and has a plausible likelihood of improving conduct, whereas a stronger sanction makes sense for someone who has a somewhat lesser likelihood of better content, even if the potential exists, when it's unlikely that we could gain that much in terms of content improvement. "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit" has been a catchy slogan, but as a practical reality it falls short, relative to Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it's kind of a shame that BRIE has come to replace principles like WP:A/I/P#Sanctions and circumstances, which made it clear that positive contributions don't excuse misbehavior while still being honest about the fact that they do ultimately play a role in the sanctions calculus. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I tend to agree. It may not have been the intention, but this decision creates the perception that there are different rules for different people. That perception is precisely why the community was unable to address the problem in the first place. When I recommended bringing this issue to ArbCom, I had hoped it would rise above that apparent double standard. Instead, at nearly every stage, there seemed to be a reluctance to actually resolve the issue. Reviewing the editor's most recent comments, it is difficult to see any outcome other than the inevitable one. Unfortunately, it appears that more of the community's time will be wasted getting there. I wonder how many more editors will be discouraged or driven away before it gets to that point. Nemov (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, @Parabolist, here's the thing: if Dronebogus abides by his (non-ban) restrictions, history teaches us we well get some new problem, one that will take quite a lot of community time and effort to attempt to mitigate. Meanwhile, if SchroCat abides by his restrictions, the SchroCat problem is solved. History teaches us that outcome is unlikely, it's true. But if he'll take the Hail Mary, it's his. If he doesn't - if, given the choice between being an asshole and contributing to Wikipedia, he picks the former - Twinkle makes AE blocks very convenient, these days. -- asilvering (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Half of the cases that reach you come from AE being unable to resolve problems. Arbcom going "AE can solve this" seems directly counter to the world as it is observed. Basically: I'll believe it when I see it. Parabolist (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

"AE blocks" doesn't mean "the WP:AE noticeboard handled it". It is a kind of block that is made to enforce an arbitration decision, and it cannot be reversed unilaterally. -- asilvering (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. AE blocks and other discretionary sanctions can be made at AN(/I) as well provided there is cause to. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 04:45, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Or by any admin who spots AE-blockable behaviour in the wild. -- asilvering (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I, a gnome, find it discouraging that we gnomes seem to have been handed a different rope. I confess myself unable to comprehend the key differences between DB’s and SC’s recidivism. Incivility is incivility is incivility. Wikipedia might not be a democracy, but maybe we might recognize contributions to the project that aren’t flashy. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 18:55, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that any editors are banned :( GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

FIM is further banned from involving himself in any disputes between other editors Does this basically mean that FIM may not get involved as a third party? Imagine a multilateral dispute, e.g. FIM and one other editor wanted one thing, another editor wanted something else, and a dispute arose. Would it be all right for FIM to engage in normal process (since he's already a party), or does this prohibit him from involvement in anything involving other people, plural? I hope it's the former (seems much simpler), but perhaps Arbcom concluded that he's been disruptive in any interactions with multiple other people, and they don't think he should be involved at all where there's more than one other person.

Also, does This restriction may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter apply to the entire bullet (no user-conduct enforcement noticeboards, plus "further banned"), or just to the latter? This should have been clearer. Nyttend (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

The former—FIM may not get involved as a third party. The appeal framework applies to the entire remedy. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:25, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster or any other arb, follow-up question. If FIM is banned from user conduct noticeboards, does this include threads where he is a party (i.e. if he were reported at ANI, would he be disallowed from responding)? Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

It would not per WP:BANEX. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:59, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Whoops, I forgot about that momentarily. D'oh! Thanks though. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with GoodDay that banning any editor is not a good outcome when compromise would have been available. I dream of arbitrators getting parties at a table and talk about an agreement. We talk about the small difference between a few lines added by a new editor and this: is it really worth to be called a contentious topic? If not, what can we do to drop that label? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Ironically, I think your continued insistence on bringing up a largely irrelevant (see #1, #2, #3) topic because you cannot conceive of disputes not originating from that topic goes some way to explaining why it is considered contentious. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I can conceive of other disputes but know nothing about them. About this one, I know that compromise would be a good option. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Ironically, it was you who supplied evidence that Dronebogus initiated four discussions about infoboxes (the Ziegler sisters, Erik Satie and the guidelines for Classical music in 2026), in which he found the support of the community. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Precisely. Dronebogus's position on infoboxes was backed up by a large portion of the community, and so was largely irrelevant to the ArbCom case and his ban. Thank you for summarising. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

A gradual descent into personal bickering. Thryduulf (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

From the closure, it's not obvious what he was banned for. Can that perhaps be clarified? I received the advice on my talk to never speak of infoboxes again, - the user who said so seems to have read the ban as a warning: it may be dangerouus to support infoboxes, like Dronebogus, me, Nemov ... the community. - I remember - that's where I come from. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

The closure is quite clear Gerda Arendt. Dronebogus was banned according to the recidivism principle. Dronebogus received multiple blocks and editing restrictions in multiple topic areas over the years, yet showed no sign of improving his conduct, around infoboxes or not. As outlined in Dronebogus's conduct, his behaviour in the course of his interactions with SchroCat and the other named parties (some, but not all, of which concerned infoboxes) was tendentious and disruptive. As shown from the previous blocks and editing restrictions, the central and recurring problem was not infoboxes, but Dronebogus. The arbs invoked WP:Enough is enough.

By the way, your belief (pretended or not) that Ritchie333's comment here followed up on Dronebogus's ban, and not your then-ongoing block for canvassing (!!!) goes a long way to proving his point. You seem incapable of viewing the topic as anything other than a battleground between supporters and opposers, which every related dispute must be centred around, and in which any sanction is ipso facto a warning to your side. I was surprised to see a new name at WT:INFOBOX yesterday; I was not surprised to see you'd initiated them into the dispute as soon as they made their first comment.

You asked above why this topic is still considered contentious—honestly, I think one of the biggest reasons might very well be you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll look up what "recidivism principle" means, but I guess that you explained it. - Please define "initiated" when I replied to a comment on Verdi. - Repeating: even if Dronebogus remains banned and I die, there will be others like the two new editors who were reverted (diffs above). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

"to initiate": "to teach someone about an area of knowledge". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt You wrote "it may be dangerouus to support infoboxes". That sentence sums up the problem you have. It is not a question of supporting or opposing infoboxes, it is simply a matter that nobody else cares apart from the 5-10 or so people who get themselves embroiled in bitter disputes over what I consider to be pointless and trivial matters. I also remember; that is where I come from. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:33, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

5-10 editors locked in perpetual conflict for over fifteen years because none of them can disengage. Imagine the amount of community time saved if they'd all been topic-banned a decade ago!? What a waste. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

What a waste, amen. I don't know on what evidence your claims are based. I haven't seen an RfC since Spring 2025, and it was not bitter. I gave the numbers for Mozart and Satie in the case, but you two seem not to have looked at them, and possibly the arbs also didn't look at them. I have no time to research how many different editors supported in the many RfCs for Mozart alone. There's peace since the compromise was reached, in 2023. Why the same can't be found for others, I don't know. I have a FAC open, in case of interest; content is what matters for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Until next time, then. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Ferruccio Busoni? Claudio Monteverdi? ... - most composers get infoboxes without problems these days. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

“content is what matters for me”. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Infoboxes, like images and tables, are part of content. You can review my FAC, BWV 43, and several GAN such as Felicity Lott. - What I question is your description of "perpetual conflict", - define "perpetual" when there was one conflict (and a civil one) in more than a year. The topic could be managed by simple editing with respect for WP:BRD instead of the "contentious topic" label that seems inadequate in 2026. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it probably could be, in the same way that you could probably disengage from the topic as Ritchie advised. The probability lies in theory, not in practice. Same time next week? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Both of you should consider letting the other person have the last word on this page. Izno (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Is there something like a mediation (a mediator) for the dispute? Its a great loss for the project to have both sides banned. Grimes2 14:54, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

The WP:MEDCOM disbanded about eight years ago. Dunno anyone who does mediation other than WP:DRN. George Ho (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it takes any particular gift to mediate other than common sense and diplomacy, and an openness to listen to both sides. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Mediation is useful when there is some point of disagreement that could theoretically be resolved by compromise. One might, for example, have a mediated discussion about whether to include an infobox in an article or not. It's possible that something like that could have helped, some years ago, to resolve some of the differences between the parties to this case. But this case wasn't about some particular point of disagreement. It was about editor behaviour. -- asilvering (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) last word on this page, said Izno: All right. The main subject of this ArbCom case has spent more than two weeks of his three-month ban. Let's await his legit (though restricted) return in early August please (hoping he doesn't sock again amid the temporary ban). Can an arb or a clerk close this discussion please (before it devolves into some shouting match about infoboxes or "perpetual conflicts" or...)? Cheers. George Ho (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2026 (UTC); edited, 18:08, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Never mind that, considering that the portion was collapsed. George Ho (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2026 (UTC)