Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchroCat/Workshop

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

Arbitrators active on this case

Active:

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

Inactive:

1. Sdrqaz(talk · contribs)

Recused:

1. HJMitchell(talk · contribs)

I am new to the arbitration process, but I want to recommend the following be taken into consideration:

• SchroCat having a lot of friends who can vouch for him being nice to them does not excuse mistreating users outside his circle.
• SchroCat being a valued contributor doesn’t give him the excuse to be very high-maintenance.
• As already stated, I think the diffs presented show SchroCat’s output is overrated and his auteurism is detrimental to the quality of articles of which he is the primary author.
• Tim riley, Ssilvers, and to a lesser extent FIM have been shown to closely follow SchroCat and jump to his defense in almost any dispute. This defense often consists of backing up and echoing his incivility and ownership behavior rather than simply agreeing with him.

As for what specific issues need solutions:

• SchroCat needs to stop being uncivil and communicate objections to others’ edits calmly and clearly without treating them differently because he likes or dislikes them.
• SchroCat needs to stop displaying ownership behavior, particularly of FAs.
• SchroCat needs to be receptive to constructive criticism and recommendations he may not immediately agree with, particularly regarding FAs.
• Tim riley, Ssilvers, and FIM need to stop enabling SchroCat’s misbehavior, and start avoiding disputes where the only involvement is their close association with SchroCat.

Proposed remedies:

• SchroCat gets a true definitely final last warning that any significant misconduct results in an indef until he shows understanding and remorse. what counts as "significant" is up to the enforcing admin— the point is to give some leeway for the most minor breaches of decorum.
• SchroCat is required to provide clear, calm, policy-based objections to edits he reverts or otherwise disputes. Failure to do so shall result in a warning. Consistent failure to do so will result in a block at enforcing admin’s discretion.
• Tim riley, Ssilvers, and FIM are warned and restricted from association with SchroCat outside of collaboration on the same article— they can’t go to a page they’ve never edited to back him up in a content dispute or send him messages on his talk page asserting he’s done nothing wrong. Failure to comply may result in warnings or page blocks
• No-one gets topic banned or anything like that. SchroCat has an attitude problem, not a content problem, even regarding infoboxes; I have a problem with SchroCat’s attitude, not with his opinions (even though I broadly disagree with them).

If anyone could show me what this would look like in proper formatting I would appreciate it Dronebogus (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

You may wanna see the template showing you how (e.g. this template ). Seems you're most interested in proposing remedies, so... why not start with Remedies? Then you may wanna write Finding of facts.... Or you can start with proposing either Finding of facts or principles. George Ho (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

That template looks really complicated. And what are findings of fact and principles exactly? Dronebogus (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Well... Whatever principles Wikipedia is supposed to have, like civility and what Wikipedia is (supposed to be). I even wrote down the principle about (what) Arbitration (should be). Finding of facts can be based on whatever is provided in the Evidence phase. George Ho (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

• Findings of fact are factual statements, supported by the evidence. "Tim riley and Ssilvers have closely followed SchroCat and defended him in multiple disputes. This often consists of echoing his incivility and ownership behaviour rather than simply agreeing with him. [link to relevant evidence]" would be a finding of fact. They are usually based on evidence presented on the evidence page but sometimes statements made or general behaviour on other case pages are the basis (the latter normally only when someone has engaged especially productively/unproductively during the case). Sometimes findings of fact are made to provide context for those unfamiliar with the topic area, and these are based on articles, policy/guideline pages, etc. In this case there might be a finding along the lines of what featured articles are supported by a link to WP:FA.
• Principles are general statements relating to polices, guidelines and/or generally accepted norms that relate to the either the nature of the dispute as a whole, to some specific aspect of it or to some specific behaviour presented in the evidence. "Being a valued contributor does not excuse incivility" would be a principle.

Reading the principles and findings of fact sections of some past cases should give you an idea. Thryduulf (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

The concepts seem to be summarized at the first two bullet points of WP:ARBGUIDE#Proposed decision. Left guide (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'm not ready to make any concrete proposals for wording, but I do want to respond to some of the stalking ideas that have been floated. FAC is a small place. At any one time, there's only about 50 articles in play. Of those, if you're only into certain topics, there may just be a handful of articles that interest you. And the population of editors working FAC is pretty small. If you venture out of FAC into the wider world of FAs that are being maintained long-term, the space opens up a bit, but it's still not huge. This all adds up to the odds that you'll run across the same editors over and over being pretty high, even absent any intentional stalking. RoySmith (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

@RoySmith: if you’re going to make a proposal do it now, workshop closes on the 22nd Dronebogus (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

I am aware of that, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Arbs and/or Clerks, Would it be possible for me to add another proposal to my section of this page? If not, could you suggest where I could add such a proposal (apologies - I am utterly clueless about ArbCom procedures and guidelines and have no idea how this all actually works in practice). Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 24 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'm neither an Arb nor a Clerk, but baring exceptional circumstances (which you will need to present if you think they apply) proposals may not be made after the workshop closes. The point is to have a definite end point so the drafters have time to read and consider all the evidence and all the workshop comments presented. This enables them to actually conclude a case rather than have it drag on endlessly. Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 24 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

I am aware of the reasoning, but a proposal from one of the parties may be of benefit to the drafters. I am happy for the Arbs or Clerks to answer my point though. - SchroCat (talk) 09:37, 24 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

I can tell you that the answer will be no unless you explain why you didn't make it before the deadline. Thryduulf (talk) 10:10, 24 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

As I've said, I am happy for the Arbs or Clerks to answer my points. - SchroCat (talk) 10:11, 24 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your best bet is probably to make your suggestions informally here. If I were the drafting arb, I would be extremely reluctant to reopen the workshop or allow post-closing edits (especially for just one person). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:33, 24 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

@SchroCat: exemptions and extensions for the workshop phase are typically made for new developments and the like, which this unfortunately does not rise to the level of. DatGuy ^Talk _Contribs 15:58, 25 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thanks Harry. It's only something that came to mind this morning, thus the lateness. I'll structure it as a workshop proposal in the hope it doesn't lead to threaded discussion: