Main case page (talk) — Preliminary statements — Evidence (talk) — Workshop (talk) — Proposed decision (talk)

Target dates: Opened 1 April 2026 • Evidence closes 23:59, 15 April 2026 (UTC) • Workshop closes 23:59, 22 April 2026 (UTC) • Proposed decision to be posted by 29 April 2026

Scope: SchroCat and interactions with named parties

Case clerk: DatGuy (talk) • Drafting arbitrators: Guerillero (talk) & theleekycauldron (talk) & asilvering (talk)

Case opened on 08:55, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Case closed on 13:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

This case is closed. No edits should be made to this page except by clerks or arbitrators.

Any violations of the remedies passed in the case should be raised at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
Specific requests for amendment or clarification about the decision should be raised at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
General questions can be raised at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee.
Actions taken to enforce remedies authorised in the case (if applicable) are to be logged at the centralised arbitration enforcement log.

Case information

Involved parties

SchroCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Dronebogus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Fortuna imperatrix mundi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ssilvers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tim riley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Robert McClenon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party

Prior dispute resolution

Preliminary statements

Preliminary statements given in the case request stage may be found at /Preliminary statements.

Preliminary decision

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (7/0/1)

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)[reply]
- @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)[reply]
- @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)[reply]
- Per my previous comments and the close of the ANI thread, accept. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:50, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:35, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

For the folks worried about us resolving this by motion: a majority of active arbs have voted to accept the case, so there's going to be a case. It's just waiting on the drafters/clerks doing the prep work. -- asilvering (talk) 09:21, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Accept. Sigh. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:33, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, per leek. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If we take a case, I think Dronebogus is a natural inclusion as party. Izno (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely open to this, although we may need to workshop scope a bit. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:57, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
ARBINFOBOX2?! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

oh no. is it too late to retract my acceptance theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:07, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Hate to be that guy... but WP:ARBINFOBOX2 exists. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 17:36, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"SchroCat and related parties" is about where I am for scoping. Izno (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
I'd like to hear from SchroCat. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 17:36, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to hear from Fortuna imperatrix mundi. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 21:38, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:17, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers and Tim riley: do you have comments about GreenLipstickLesbian's statement? Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 20:06, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
~~Procedural decline to stop the train and let SC respond --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:41, 24 March 2026 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Accept I don't think there is another option at this point, but the party list should include a number of friends who seem to show. That being said, I have zero interest including Harry based on one comment from 4 years ago. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:53, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
~~Adding my procedural decline for the same reason.~~ Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 20:15, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
I'm going to check back tomorrow before voting on this. - Aoidh (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I concur with Eek - SchroCat has acknowledged some shortcomings, and a proposal has been suggested that they are in willing to participate in; that looks to me like a potential way forward, and if we give that a chance to work by motion without a full case, I would be in favour of that. If we do have a full case, then I agree with others above that some work on the scope will be necessary. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:12, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision

All tallies are based on the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still result in sanctions.

Passed 13 to 0 at 13:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Being right isn't enough

2) Violations of Wikipedia's behavioral expectations are not excused on the grounds that the editor who violated those expectations has the correct position on an underlying substantive dispute or the interpretation of policies and guidelines within those disputes. Those expectations apply universally to all editors, and violations of those expectations are harmful to the functioning of the project, irrespective of the merits of an underlying substantive dispute.

Passed 12 to 0 at 13:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Focusing on content isn't enough

3) It is entirely possible to flout the norms of civility while still focusing on content. Repeated, harsh degradations of other people's work, particularly when those comments are disproportionate to the impact of the edits, are highly corrosive to the collaborative environment.

Passed 13 to 0 at 13:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

User talk pages

4) Editors are usually allowed to remove, with or without archiving or responding, anything posted to their talk pages, including criticism. However, a user talk page is often the first and most appropriate venue for dispute resolution, and when one editor shuts down feedback or complaints unilaterally, it can be discouraging for the other editor and frustrate resolution of the dispute. While giving broad leeway to editors to manage their talk pages is a necessary part of the project, excessive removals and failure to engage with legitimate criticism may still reflect poorly on an editor in a conduct discussion, especially when combined with other instances of uncollaborative conduct.

Passed 8 to 4 with 1 abstention at 13:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Introspection

5) Constructive feedback and criticism are a core part of a collaborative project. Giving and receiving it effectively are invaluable skills for an editor to have, and whether an editor has those skills is an important consideration in discussions on restrictions. When an editor habitually shuts down legitimate criticism of their actions, it suggests that their misconduct cannot be effectively met with warnings or other remedies that rely on introspection.

Passed 11 to 0 with 2 abstentions at 13:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Recidivism

6) Editors sanctioned for disruptive behavior are expected to improve their behavior, should they continue to participate in the project. Sanctioned editors should be afforded assistance and reasonable time to improve (especially if they demonstrate the ability to engage positively with the community), but if their conduct does not improve they may be subject to increasingly severe sanctions.

Passed 13 to 0 at 13:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Findings of fact

General background

1) The case was brought to the Arbitration Committee following a March 2026 ANI thread that found clear consensus that SchroCat has acted with incivility but no consensus as to remedies. That thread had been opened less than two months after a previous ANI thread, about SchroCat and Tim riley's behaviour, closed with a warning for Tim riley and no action against SchroCat. The topic of the case is SchroCat (talk · contribs) and interactions with named parties, namely Dronebogus (talk · contribs), Fortuna imperatrix mundi (talk · contribs), Ssilvers (talk · contribs), and Tim riley (talk · contribs). While many editors made reference to infoboxes in evidence submissions, the locus of this case is the conduct of the named parties, not infoboxes.

Passed 13 to 0 at 13:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

SchroCat's history

2) In his 15 years of editing, SchroCat has been blocked 11 times ([1]), excluding sockpuppetry blocks. These blocks were for edit-warring, incivility, or both. He was quickly unblocked on five of those occasions. SchroCat has been blocked for misuse of multiple accounts, and is required to disclose any future alternative accounts either publicly or privately to the Arbitration Committee ([2]). SchroCat was a named party in Civility in infobox discussions.

Passed 12 to 0 with 1 abstention at 13:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

SchroCat's conduct

3) SchroCat is unnecessarily aggressive, personalizes disputes, and belittles editors he disagrees with (Graham87's evidence, Andrew Davidson's evidence, Dronebogus's evidence, Nemov's evidence, Vanamonde's evidence, LEvalyn's evidence), while also being quick to judge other editors' behaviour as uncivil or as personal attacks (Vanamonde's evidence, viz [3], GreenLipstickLesbian's evidence, SchroCat's conduct during the case, viz [4]). His approach prolongs and stonewalls disputes instead of leading to mutually satisfactory solutions (Graham87's evidence, viz [5], AirshipJungleman29's evidence, viz [6], GreenLipstickLesbian's evidence, viz [7]). However, when interacting with editors he respects, he is collaborative and collegial (GoodDay's evidence, JacobTheRox's evidence, AirshipJungleman29's evidence). SchroCat has admitted his incivility and pledged to improve (SchroCat's evidence); however, the conduct issues have persisted (LEvalyn's evidence). SchroCat attributes this conduct to burnout (SchroCat's evidence). SchroCat shuts down discussions he does not want on article talk pages and good-faith criticism on his user talk page (Nemov's evidence, HJ Mitchell's evidence).

Passed 12 to 0 with 1 abstention at 13:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Dronebogus's history

4) In their 6 years of editing, Dronebogus has been blocked three times ([8]). These blocks were for hounding (of SchroCat), personal attacks, and bludgeoning. They were quickly unblocked on one of those occasions. Dronebogus has been banned by the community from the area of XFDs, broadly construed, following earlier topic bans from closing any XfD discussion and miscellany for deletion, broadly construed ([9]). Dronebogus has additionally agreed to a voluntary TBan from removing IP comments on talk pages ([10]).

Passed 12 to 0 with 1 abstention at 13:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Dronebogus's conduct

5) Dronebogus's participation in projectspace has been persistently disruptive, sometimes extending into mainspace. They have turned minor disputes into RfCs (AirshipJungleman29's evidence, viz [11], [12], HJ Mitchell's evidence), and, once a discussion has begun, they repeatedly fail to drop the stick (see eg Workshop). They have repeatedly been involved in disputes that escalate to noticeboards; these disputes include flare-ups in the simmering conflict with SchroCat and other parties to the case (Vanamonde93's evidence, HJ Mitchell's evidence). Administrators closing these discussions have warned that further similar behaviour may lead to increasing sanctions (2022, 2023, July 2025, October 2025).

Passed 12 to 0 with 1 abstention at 13:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Fortuna imperatrix mundi's history

6) In their 12 years of editing, Fortuna imperatrix mundi has been blocked once; he was quickly unblocked (the two other blocks were errors) ([13]). He was formally warned a year ago under the contentious topic designation for infoboxes for aggressive comments towards Dronebogus ([14]). Fortuna is a frequent third-party participant at user-conduct discussions, with over 1,700 edits to the administrators' noticeboard and the administrators' noticeboard for incidents since 2021.

Passed 12 to 0 with 1 abstention at 13:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Fortuna imperatrix mundi's conduct

7) Fortuna imperatrix mundi is frequently uncivil and unnecessarily personalizes disputes (Dronebogus's evidence, viz [15]; GreenLipstickLesbian's evidence). He applies double standards to civility disputes and edit-warring (GreenLipstickLesbian's evidence, viz [16] [17]; Dronebogus's evidence, viz [18]). In the evidence phase, Fortuna accused Dronebogus of "tend[ing] towards" tu quoque reasoning on user conduct; Fortuna himself frequently discredits other editors' complaints in user-conduct disputes by attacking their records (Fortuna imperatrix mundi's evidence; GreenLipstickLesbian's evidence, viz [19]; Dronebogus's evidence, viz [20]). Fortuna's conduct towards editors he respects and agrees with is cordial (Dronebogus's evidence, as explained in [21]; Fortuna imperatrix mundi's evidence).

Passed 12 to 0 with 1 abstention at 13:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Tim riley's history

8) Tim riley has been an editor since 2005, has never been blocked, and is not under any editing restrictions. He was warned by the community in January 2026 for making uncivil remarks towards other editors in content disputes (HJ Mitchell's evidence, viz [22]).

Passed 12 to 0 with 1 abstention at 13:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Tim riley's conduct

9) Tim riley personalizes disputes and belittles editors he disagrees with (GreenLipstickLesbian's evidence, Dronebogus's evidence).

Passed 12 to 0 with 1 abstention at 13:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Prior conflicts

10) As well as conflicts between SchroCat and Dronebogus, there have been similar conflicts between Ssilvers and Dronebogus that the community has struggled to deal with (HJ Mitchell's evidence, ANI threads). In these conflicts, SchroCat, Ssilvers, and Tim riley frequently support each other's positions, stonewalling potential changes (various editors' evidence). These three editors have attempted, for example, to force a local consensus about AI-altered images (GreenLipstickLesbian's evidence, viz [23]).

Passed 11 to 0 with 2 abstentions at 13:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Interaction ban between SchroCat and Dronebogus

1) SchroCat and Dronebogus are prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, contributions made by each other, subject to the normal exceptions. This restriction may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.

Passed 9 to 1 with 2 abstentions at 13:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Dronebogus indefinitely banned

3) Dronebogus is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. This restriction may be appealed after six months, and every six months thereafter.

Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention at 13:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

SchroCat probation

4) SchroCat is placed on probation. Violations of behavioral expectations may be enforced in the same manner as a contentious topic, including through the standard set of user restrictions, and misconduct may be reported at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or directly to the Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. This probation may be appealed in six months, and every six months thereafter.

Passed 10 to 2 with 1 abstention at 13:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

SchroCat AE participation restriction

5) Reports at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard about SchroCat are automatically subject to the "AE participation restriction". If there are particular editors whose input would be useful on a given thread, uninvolved administrators are encouraged to use their authority to invite them to comment.

Passed 12 to 0 with 1 abstention at 13:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

SchroCat temporarily banned

6) SchroCat is banned from the English Wikipedia for three months.

Passed 7 to 5 with 1 abstention at 13:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Fortuna imperatrix mundi warned

8) Fortuna imperatrix mundi is warned to abide by the civility policy.

Passed 10 to 1 with 1 abstention at 13:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Fortuna imperatrix mundi indefinite topic ban (user conduct, broadly)

9b) Fortuna imperatrix mundi is indefinitely banned from user-conduct enforcement noticeboards. FIM is further banned from involving himself in any disputes between other editors, including actions such as warning an editor for their actions in such a dispute, except for obvious vandalism. This restriction may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.

Passed 9 to 3 with 1 abstention at 13:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Fortuna imperatrix mundi anti-coordination restriction with SchroCat (alt)

10c) Fortuna imperatrix mundi and SchroCat are topic banned from article disputes or user disputes involving each other. This restriction may be appealed by either party six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.

Passed 9 to 0 with 4 abstentions at 13:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Ssilvers anti-coordination restriction with SchroCat (alt)

11c) Ssilvers and SchroCat are topic banned from article disputes or user disputes involving each other. This restriction may be appealed by either party six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.

Passed 11 to 0 with 2 abstentions at 13:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Tim riley anti-coordination restriction with SchroCat (alt)

13c) Tim riley and SchroCat are topic banned from article disputes or user disputes involving each other. This restriction may be appealed by either party six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.

Passed 10 to 0 with 3 abstentions at 13:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Unless otherwise specified by the Arbitration Committee, should any user violate a restriction imposed directly by the Committee, that user may be blocked as an arbitration enforcement action. Such blocks must be logged in the arbitration enforcement log.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 26 April 2026, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

All active arbitration enforcement actions may be appealed. Only active restrictions may be appealed, and all labelled enforcement actions (including ones alleged to be against policy) must be successfully appealed under the applicable arbitration enforcement appeals procedure before they can be modified.

Unless otherwise specified by the Arbitration Committee, the following procedure governs arbitration enforcement appeals. An editor may:

ask the administrator who first issued the enforcement action (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); or
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the Committee, once the Committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction, who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever other period the Committee may specify.

Changing or revoking an enforcement action

An administrator may only modify or revoke an enforcement action if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[1] or is no longer an administrator;^[2] or
The restriction was issued more than a year ago.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the enforcement action:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, or
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes an enforcement action out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review

On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify an arbitration enforcement action on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn an arbitration enforcement action only if:

the action was inconsistent with applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

References

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals provision adopted 26 April 2026, this provision did not require a vote.

Enforcement log

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[1]

[2]