Editing Eurovision Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (section)

== Schrocat and behavioural conduct ==

{{Userlinks|SchroCat}}

Schrocat has an issue with civility and disputes. I made an edit to [[Elizabeth Lyon (criminal)]] over the wording of a single sentence, Schrocat reverted so I tried different wording based on his revert, he reverted that, so I tried a third wording and opened a talk page section, only to be met with incivility and other behavioural issues at the talk page. 

[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElizabeth_Lyon_%28criminal%29&diff=1342196380&oldid=1342195310]] his initial response at the talk page I have only minor disagreement with and is mostly from a conduct point. His later responses include [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElizabeth_Lyon_%28criminal%29&diff=1342197497&oldid=1342197252|a simple your wrong type comment]] and when asked to expand on why he disagrees with my reasoning he responded with [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElizabeth_Lyon_%28criminal%29&diff=1342198565&oldid=1342198160|snark and referring to my edit as dross]], I asked him to respond without snark and was met with [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElizabeth_Lyon_%28criminal%29&diff=1342200798&oldid=1342199976|this]] {{tq|Don't even ''try'' to take some form of moral higher ground}} [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElizabeth_Lyon_%28criminal%29&diff=1342202436&oldid=1342202308|"horseshit"]] and [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElizabeth_Lyon_%28criminal%29&diff=1342204155&oldid=1342203839|"Dross and nonsense"]] {{tq|You've managed to take the article backwards, even it is only a small step. Excellent work}} etc. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]])  17:59, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
:It also seems slighlty [[WP:OWNERSHIP]]-y as he was the one behind the original wording. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]])  18:02, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
::Why is it that whenever someone is disruptive and ignores STATUS QUO and the standing consensus, and tries to force something on an article which is disagreed with, they soon start throwing out accusations of ownership? See [[WP:STEWARDSHIP]] and don't throw around uncivil and unfounded accusations in future. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 18:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
:OP, you need to capitalize the "C" in SchroCat within the template at the start of this thread. "Schrocat" has zero edits. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 18:05, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
::Sorry forgot the userlinks template is case sensitive. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]])  18:07, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
:His response to the ANI notification was to call it [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASchroCat&diff=1342208060&oldid=1342207701|"tiresome"]]. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]])  18:07, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
:Just use the talk page if anything is reverted. Don't re-revert, which is edit-warring. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 18:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
:*(ec) Honestly, dropping that one just seems petty. Most editors will feel that edit wars and ANI are tiresome. That's not a statement about you; that's a statement about the process. While I cannot endorse the vulgar language, I'm not seeing this as reaching the personal attack level.&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Chris Woodrich]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 18:24, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
::Most of the diffs are from the talk page. I'm trying to discuss but SchroCat is refusing to discuss beyond handwaving to a consensus by silence and snark. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]])  18:26, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
:::See [[WP:CAREFUL]] (not commenting on anything else) [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Kowal2701|contribs]]) 18:33, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
::::I don't see how that has to do with anything, the reverting of my edits is not a problem Schrocat's behaviour at the talk page is. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]])  18:36, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
:::{{reply|Lavalizard101}}: {{tq|I tried a third wording and opened a talk page section}}. Ah; so edit-warred your preferred version in breach of [[WP:FAOWN]] (a policy, you know), and then opened the talk page discussion you shoud have opened after you were reverted the first time (per [[WP:ONUS]], also policy)? Cheers! [[User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">'''—'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">''Fortuna''</span>]], [[User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:#8B0000">imperatrix</span>]] 18:36, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Attempted rewording upon an initial objection is allowed. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]])  18:41, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
::::I don't think that's a fair recollection of the events:
::::Going by timestamps, we have:
::::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Lyon_(criminal)&diff=prev&oldid=1342185333 2026-03-07T15:06:56] LavaLizard makes an edit, complete with edit summary, changing one word
::::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Lyon_(criminal)&diff=next&oldid=1342185333 2026-03-07T15:09:18 ] Schrocat reverts, with an edit summary
::::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Lyon_(criminal)&diff=next&oldid=1342186062 2026-03-07T15:57:39 ] LavaLizard makes a completely different edit, with an edit summary, trying to address both their concerns and Schrocat's
::::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Lyon_(criminal)&diff=next&oldid=1342191074 2026-03-07T16:04:46 ] Schrocatreverts, instructing LavaLizard to discuss their edits on the talkpage
::::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_Lyon_(criminal)&diff=prev&oldid=1342195310 2026-03-07T16:30:50] LavaLizard starts the talkpage discussion, saying they found thw wording ambigious
::::*And, a few minutes later, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Lyon_(criminal)&diff=next&oldid=1342192031 2026-03-07T16:32:08 ] comes up with yet a third wording, still trying to address both editor's concerns. 
::::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Lyon_(criminal)&diff=next&oldid=1342195473 2026-03-07T16:38:11 ] Schrocat reverts LavaLizard's edit yet again, saying {{tqq|Per BRD and STATUSQUO, stop edit warring and let the discussion run its course}}
::::*Then, a few minutes later ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_Lyon_(criminal)&diff=prev&oldid=1342196380 2026-03-07T16:40:34]), goes to the talkpage and opens with {{tqq|FFS, will you stop edit warring on this}}
::::I detailed the futher conversation in a lower post; it doesn't get any better. [[User:GreenLipstickLesbian|<span style="color:#EB0533;">GreenLipstickLesbian</span>]][[User Talk:GreenLipstickLesbian|💌]][[Special:Contribs/GreenLipstickLesbian|🧸]] 18:54, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
::TO prevent the appearance of bludgeoning, I will only respond here if people have any questions or want a response to anything. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]])  18:41, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
:While I'm unimpressed by the edit warring, it takes two people to edit war - if I tried to discuss something on a talkpage, only to be met with a much more senior editor  saying things like:
:{{tqq|Your logic is flawed and the change you made even worse}}
:{{tqq|You've now introduced OR into a featured article. Bravo. Feeling good about yourself?}}
:{{tqq|It's a second-rate approach and second rate behaviour}}
:{{tqq|This has been through two review processes which did a far better job than your second rate nonsense}}
:{{tqq|You've managed to take the article backwards, even it is only a small step. Excellent work}}
:Well, I can see why this was escalgted to AN/I  - with respect to @[[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] and @[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]], this is absolutely a conduct issue at this point.
:Looking more broadly:
:{{tqq|Utter horseshit. This has been through two review processes which did a far better job than your second rate nonsense}}
:Is this really a proportionate response to somebody saying, calmly on the talkpage, that they found the wording "in the years following her death" ambiguous or misleading? This is very clearly [[WP:OWN]]-ership behaviour, something Scrhocat which Scrocat has an issue with. During their most recent edit warring block - while also calling another editor {{tqq|second rate}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SchroCat&oldid=1328364059#December_2025] and defending both their edit warring and the personal attacks by claiming that they were just following... [[WP:FAOWN]]. 
:I'm also struck by the fact that Schrocat is calling the accusation of OWNERSHIP behaviour uncivil, while maintaining that they have a right to call other editors and their contributions second rate. I hope AN/I doesn't lose sight of that. [[User:GreenLipstickLesbian|<span style="color:#EB0533;">GreenLipstickLesbian</span>]][[User Talk:GreenLipstickLesbian|💌]][[Special:Contribs/GreenLipstickLesbian|🧸]] 18:43, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
::CC @[[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]], who specifically warned Schrocat the other month about calling other editors second rate.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SchroCat&diff=prev&oldid=1328116385] [[User:GreenLipstickLesbian|<span style="color:#EB0533;">GreenLipstickLesbian</span>]][[User Talk:GreenLipstickLesbian|💌]][[Special:Contribs/GreenLipstickLesbian|🧸]] 18:45, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Try reading my comments please: I have not called anyone second rate. I have described wording, approach etc as second rate, but have '''not''' called him second rate. Let's not let the desire to get someone blocked veer into 'misreading' what I have said. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 18:57, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Attempting to defend your behavior as being acceptable and content-focused while simultaneously assigning motive to someone else's behavior is digging deeper not climbing up. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 19:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::I'm sorry, but I have not claimed anything of the sort. I was correcting a misrepresentation of what I did say. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 19:13, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::And how else do you think {{tq|the desire to get someone blocked}} ought to be interpreted? [[User:ChompyTheGogoat|ChompyTheGogoat]] ([[User talk:ChompyTheGogoat|talk]]) 04:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Schrocat, I understand this is a bit stressful (and I certainly don't <em>want</em> to see you blocked), and that doesn't always help with parsing text, but how do you describe saying:
::::{{quote|As long as you or for the first revert against second-rate shitty edits going for you!) Sometimes I wonder what the point is of producing quality work when second rate editors can game the system and admins back up such shitty approaches. Once upon a time Admins had an eye on the quality of content, not a mindless focus kn second rate dross from second-rate editors who have no clue on how to discuss their third rate suggestions}}
::::as anything but calling other editors second-rate? And I note the "I didn't call you stupid! I said your <em>behaviour</em> was stupid!" defense hadn't yet materialized when you were contemporaneously called out for that; you said[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SchroCat&diff=prev&oldid=1328118040]
::::{{quote|Even when they are playing games, being disruptive and acting in a second-rate manner on content the community has already deemed at an appropriate standard? Have you actually looked into how they wish to downgrade community-graded material? How would you wish me to refer to such editors that are not of sufficient standard? I can replace “second rate” with several other terms, if you want to whitewash people of insufficient ability, but I’m struggling to think of what wording you may think appropriate}}
::::[[User:GreenLipstickLesbian|<span style="color:#EB0533;">GreenLipstickLesbian</span>]][[User Talk:GreenLipstickLesbian|💌]][[Special:Contribs/GreenLipstickLesbian|🧸]] 19:23, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::I'm sorry, but {{tq|I certainly don't <em>want</em> to see you blocked}} is dissonant to pinging an admin {{tq|who specifically warned Schrocat the other month}}.{{pb}}Still, at least you've avoided [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1341996340 accusing editors] of being "summoned from an external website" to this discussion—and being [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1341996340 warned against doing so]—albeit with a simlar degree of good faith. Sigh. [[User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">'''—'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">''Fortuna''</span>]], [[User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:#8B0000">imperatrix</span>]] 20:32, 7 March 2026 (UTC) 
::::::@[[User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|Fortuna imperatrix mundi]] If you'd like to discuss my editing on a completely separate issue, my talkpage is open - or you can start a separate thread? Just to clarify, the reason I pinged SFR is because I was relying on words he said - I can't promise I'm perfect at this, but, when relying on the words of others, I do like to touch base with them to make sure I've interpreted them correctly. That's polite, no? I certainly don't expect him to block - my notification to him, I think, precludes that as a possible outcome, even taking into account that I don't think he's edited much this year.
::::::Again, I don't want to see Schrocat blocked; I want their behavior to stop. Ideally, they'll do that themselves. That's what I <em>want</em>. [[User:GreenLipstickLesbian|<span style="color:#EB0533;">GreenLipstickLesbian</span>]][[User Talk:GreenLipstickLesbian|💌]][[Special:Contribs/GreenLipstickLesbian|🧸]] 20:45, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::FYI, your editing in this thread is ''not'' {{tq|editing on a completely separate issue}}. But thanks for clarifying that you want to knock a wall down even as you build it up. Best, [[User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">'''—'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">''Fortuna''</span>]], [[User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:#8B0000">imperatrix</span>]] 20:51, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::No, but my editing in a previous AN/I thread or elsewhere on the site, <em>is</em>.
::::::::I know you've had opinions on admins blocking Schrocat, an editor you have collaborated across a wide variety of areas with extensively in the past[https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=SchroCat&users=Fortuna+imperatrix+mundi&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki] - again, during the most recent block, said that {{tqq|For the record, [[WP:FAOWN]] is as much policy as WP:3RR}},[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SchroCat&diff=prev&oldid=1328217940] while pinging the blocking admin, whilst ending discussion about the actual issue on the article talkpage. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Siege_of_Sidney_Street#c-Fortuna_imperatrix_mundi-20251217130500-Article_infobox]. So, given that, and given that I think this conversation is veering towards distracting, I don't have much more to say on the matter but this: have you considered taking a step back and letting some fresh eyes have a look at the underlying behavioral issue? I think that might be beneficial for all parties. [[User:GreenLipstickLesbian|<span style="color:#EB0533;">GreenLipstickLesbian</span>]][[User Talk:GreenLipstickLesbian|💌]][[Special:Contribs/GreenLipstickLesbian|🧸]] 21:03, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
::Calling the citing of a policy page "utter horseshit" when the quoting is to rebut perceived selective quoting of it[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_Lyon_(criminal)&diff=prev&oldid=1342204155] is something I cannot overlook. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 18:53, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
:If blocks are said to be preventive and not punitive, and [[WP:CIVILITY|civility]] is the [[WP:5P4|fourth pillar of Wikipedia]], how does the community deal with an editor who has not learned from 11 short blocks for edit-warring and incivility?  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 18:53, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

*'''Trout''' Two competent and active editors with completely different collaborative styles become random assigned to the same loosely-defined work group. Hilarity ensues. [[User:Augmented Seventh|Augmented Seventh]] ([[User talk:Augmented Seventh|talk]]) 19:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
*:I don't think this problem is confined to this dispute; for example, after the discussion was started, Schrocat has begun to edit war on a completely different article with a completely [[User:Station1|different editor]], while in the same breath accusing the other editor of edit warring - two reverts in an hour, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No%C3%ABl_Coward&action=history], with the second revert's edit summary[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No%C3%ABl_Coward&diff=prev&oldid=1342220101] being, not an actual summary of Schrocat's edits or reasoning, as you might expect an edit summary to me {{tqq|PLease don't edit war. If you want to use the talk page to discuss the matter, I think that would be a better course of action}}. [[User:GreenLipstickLesbian|<span style="color:#EB0533;">GreenLipstickLesbian</span>]][[User Talk:GreenLipstickLesbian|💌]][[Special:Contribs/GreenLipstickLesbian|🧸]] 19:31, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
*::Good point; the editor in question alternates between poorly-thought out brash comments, and lengthy precise encyclopæd'ing. Here's remembering the fallen and the lost collaborators, absent through similar circumstances. [[User:Augmented Seventh|Augmented Seventh]] ([[User talk:Augmented Seventh|talk]]) 20:04, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
*:::Thanks for pinging me, [[User:GreenLipstickLesbian|GreenLipstickLesbian]]. I rarely comment on ANI, and hesitated commenting here because I don't believe I've ever interacted with SchroCat before, at least not negatively. It's purely coincidental that I made a minor copyedit to [[Noel Coward]] while this thread was open, but, as you note, SchroCat's response is concerning, especially if it does represent an ongoing pattern. SchroCat's first reversion of my copyedit with their edit summary "Unsure why that was deleted" seemed fair enough. So I put it back with an detailed explanation in my edit summary. That's when things took a turn. SchroCat then accused me in their summary of edit-warring, which is both a serious and ridiculous accusation, and they requested a talk page discussion, which is a reasonable request if made in good faith. So I started a discussion and was ghosted by SchroCat for 3 days, during which time they were active. I leave it to others to determine if this is a pattern, and, if so, what a solution might be. [[User:Station1|Station1]] ([[User talk:Station1|talk]]) 01:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

{{hat|1=Old news that is not relevant to the current issues. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 23:05, 7 March 2026 (UTC)}}
:'''Comment:''' You may also find [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SchroCat/Archive]] useful as he has a bad habit of using alt accounts for avoiding blocks, while having the same behavior pattern. [[User:Wikiman2230|<span style="color:red;">'''Wikiman'''</span>]] ([[User talk: Wikiman2230|talk]]) 19:30, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
::That also is ''significant'' shenanigans. [[User:Augmented Seventh|Augmented Seventh]] ([[User talk:Augmented Seventh|talk]]) 20:06, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

:::No it isn't. The SPI needs to be read in the round, and Wikiman was behaviorally wrong to link it. Regardless of the fact that that the events were ''four years'' ago (and frankly, raising a long-dead investigation strikes me as litle more than stirring the pot), firstly, Bbb23's decision making had already been called into question by Arbcom, secondly, SC's logged-out editing didn't overlap with his account usage and therfore wasn't LOUT, and thirdly, at least one of those so-called filings was described as "vexatious" by the patrolling admin and closed without action by another. Yous should remember that SPI does not do "exactly what it says on the tin". [[User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">'''—'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">''Fortuna''</span>]], [[User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:#8B0000">imperatrix</span>]] 20:32, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Oh my apologies for that [[User:Wikiman2230|<span style="color:red;">'''Wikiman'''</span>]] ([[User talk: Wikiman2230|talk]]) 20:35, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
{{hab}}

[[WP:FAOWN]] says the following: {{tq|Explaining '''civilly''' why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not necessarily constitute ownership}} (emphasis added). This is a polite way of acknowledging that Featured Articles do have owners (contra [[WP:OWN]]) and don't become and remain FAs without one. That said, I don't see that WP:FAOWN is a license to abuse other editors. It's well-attested that SchroCat is often rude to other editors. That there are editors he is not rude to makes it worse, frankly: he's capable of working collaboratively when it suits him. Nothing's changed in years. I understand why some folks think SchroCat shouldn't face consequences for treating others badly and I don't agree with them and I've said so before. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 00:48, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Mackensen wrote:  {{tq| I understand why some folks think SchroCat shouldn't face consequences for treating others badly and I don't agree with them and I've said so before.}}.  There is an essay, written in 2011, with a title that is descriptive but not accurate, [[WP:Unblockables|Unblockables]].  The title is not accurate because it is about editors who are repeatedly blocked, but the blocks either are short or are undone shortly.  They are blocked, but they don't stay blocked.  As the essay explains, these editors have fan clubs, including administrators who will unblock them.  SchroCat is one of these editors who has a fan club.  One consequence of the policy that blocks are preventive rather than punitive is that it makes it nearly impossible to deal with editors who are habitually [[WP:CIVIL|uncivil]] but have fan clubs.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 18:26, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
:Yeah this seems remarkably similar to my runins with SC last year described in [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1199#c-Graham87-20250908163100-Chipmunkdavis-20250908115500|my comments]] at the end of the last ANI thread about them, though the thread as a whole is rather [[WP:TLDR]]. [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|talk]]) 04:13, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
: Honestly, the talk page comments quoted earlier sound like performance art of someone satirizing an uncivil editor on Wikipedia. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 22:43, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
*So where do we go from here? It seems pretty clear their behavior is unacceptable and past sanctions have, clearly, done nothing to help them improve as an editor. Would a permanent 1RR and something along the lines of quit personalizing disputes be worth while? [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 23:42, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
*:I'd support a 1RR restriction at this point. This has been a recurring behavioral problem for a long time and SchroCat will not change his behavior on his own. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 20:41, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
*:I would also support a 1RR. I don't think "{{tq|quit personalizing disputes}}" is useful; you've have endless arguments about whether something was a personal attack or fair comment. 1RR is clearer and has less scope for good-faith disagreement. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 11:55, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think 1RR is the answer, because when disputes arise, it is usually because SchroCat has spent a long time working on an article, while another user comes along and makes changes that make the article worse (or at least do from SchroCat's POV) and he's fed up of having to explain the issues to newcomers again and again, so gives up with an incivil remark. So the reverting itself is in good faith, and not the actual issue. Instead, I think we need to look at some sort of civility probation. As a starting point, consider [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions#Infobox probation (II)]] - although the dispute here is not to do with infoboxes. So I would suggest something like:

* '''SchroCat is placed on probation. He may be blocked from any page (including, but not restricted to, articles and talk pages) for any length of time by any uninvolved administrator if his conduct is considered disruptive or incivil. These blocks may not be overturned without consensus of the community.''' 

As an aside, I would probably never take such action myself, as I have worked closely with SchroCat on several articles and hence consider myself [[WP:INVOLVED]] with regards to taking action. I'm simply suggesting this as a starting point to get the thread closed out successfully. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 12:46, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

:I dunno, there is plenty of editwarring that this would not address. Plus I think Mackensen makes a good point about what is incivility and how do we enforce it. I dont think saying this time we are serious and just stating existing policy will make a difference. From what I can tell the only difference between existing policy that everyone has to conform to and this restriction is how it can be overturned. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 14:17, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::I share these concerns, but there's not going to be a perfect remedy. For the purposes of actually finding consensus to do something this time, I '''support''' both Ritchie's proposal and a 1RR, while acknowledging that if a new editor had engaged in the same behavior SchroCat has been reported for goodness-knows-how-many times already they would've been blocked long ago. '''[[User:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant:small-caps">Toadspike</span>]] [[User talk:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant:small-caps">[Talk]</span>]]''' 00:15, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
:::You make a great point and I shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good. Anything is a step in the right direction and either works for me as well. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 13:44, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
:If the probation idea takes hold, "for any length of time" should be "for up to 48 hours"—it's a procedure to resolve an issue, not punishment. The aim is to encourage SchroCat to take a break before commenting when heated. The aim should not be to discourage SchroCat from developing featured articles. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 04:41, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
* '''Oppose 1RR''' - This simply kicks the can down the road. Either the community accepts that SchroCat is a valuable contributor who nevertheless has persistent civility issues, or it does not. A 1RR feels like cutting the baby in half. We all know it will not meaningfully change anything, so why pretend? [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 14:22, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
*:What would be the right solution in your eyes? [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 14:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
*::SchroCat needs a minder (call it a mentor if you like). I would take that role if needed. It's a strange world where we welcome diversity and tolerate complete nonsense from time-wasters but find it difficult to accept that people like SchroCat have a different thermostat setting from most. Someone SchroCat accepts as independent needs to step in when these flare-ups occur and patiently suggest what alternative wording SC should have used. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 04:41, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*::If an editor is unwilling to acknowledge the problem, and other editors in the workspace are willing to tolerate and defend it, then a strong message needs to be delivered by the community: this kind of behavior is unacceptable if we are to take the [[WP:5P4|fourth pillar]] seriously. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 13:17, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
*:::Maybe Arbcom next time. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 21:55, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
*::::I have recommended ArbCom in the past; however, it is understandably seen as a burdensome and time consuming process, particularly when it involves some of the project's most experienced contributors. There is a substantial record of prior discussion at ANI, yet meaningful resolution has remained elusive. The pattern of dismissing civility expectations risks discouraging newer editors from participating constructively. Absent clear action, the project may be perceived as effectively condoning this behavior, and that is certainly how it appears to me. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 22:25, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''Support both 1RR and Ritchie's proposal.'''  I mean, this guy ''again?''  I've been obliquely observant of ANI, etc, for only a short time, and it was apparent at the start that this editor is a burr under the WP saddle, and has been for a very long time.  Also, no limitation should be applied to block length as proposed; a long block may actually be very useful in placing the burden of proof on SchroCat, instead of the much more junior editors who he insults and demeans constantly, to convince the community that his production of content offsets his abominable and interminable behavior problems. <span style="font-family:Papyrus;color=darkgreen">[[User:Hiobazard|'''Hiobazard''']]</span>&nbsp;([[User talk:Hiobazard|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hiobazard|contribs]]) 17:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Ritchie's idea of probation, with emphasis on the provision that probation blocks can only be lifted by the community.  This is an editor who gets blocked, and quickly gets unblocked because he has a fan club.  It doesn't matter whether the unblocking admin is a member of the fan club or the unblocking admin is persuaded by the fan club.  This is a novel idea for dealing with a problem that Wikipedia has long had a difficult time dealing with, uncivil editors who have fan clubs because they really are major contributors to the encyclopedia.  This idea is at least worth trying.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 23:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*:[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]], this is the second time you have made this accusation. Looking at my blocklog, which blocks of the last, say,  five years, were undone by members of my supposed “fan club”. Can you name these members and identify the occasions please.{{pb}}On a wider point I’m struggling to see the logical connection between a complaint about civility and a proposed “solution” of 1RR, which seems to be a solution to an entirely different problem.  - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 00:07, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
*::<s>Sealion much?</s><span style="font-family:Papyrus;color=darkgreen">[[User:Hiobazard|'''Hiobazard''']]</span>&nbsp;([[User talk:Hiobazard|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hiobazard|contribs]]) 00:38, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
*:::ANI is for information so I looked. SchroCat has not been unblocked by anyone in the last five years so {{u|Robert McClenon}} is mistaken (probably thinking of a certain old-timer who is no longer at enwiki). [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 00:51, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
*::::I was looking at SchroCat's block log, but didn't notice that the unblocks were older.  I was thinking both of that old-timer, who was one of the subjects of the mistitled essay, and of SchroCat.  I was mistaken.  I still think that the remedy is a good idea.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:15, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
* Certainly something must be done. In addition to the stark and alarming lack of civility described above, I see that his immediately previous edit at this article was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Lyon_(criminal)&diff=prev&oldid=1342116857 an entirely unrelated uncivil revert], removing an infobox with the edit summary {{tq|Removing pointless excrescence. Do not edit war: the talk page is there for good reason}}. Like SchroCrat, however, I am also {{tq|struggling to see the logical connection between a complaint about civility and a proposed “solution” of 1RR, which seems to be a solution to an entirely different problem}}. It does not seem that short term blocks have been effective at promoting a change in behaviour, as that same comment from SchroCat seems to indicate that he is aware that his editing falls short of civility expectations but expresses no intention to change. If neither an 1RR nor a short-term block addresses the persistent (and really, quite unacceptable) civility issues, what options remain that might be effective? [[User:LEvalyn|<span style="color: #6703fc">~ le <small> 🌸</small> valyn</span>]] ([[User talk:LEvalyn|talk]]) 02:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
:[[User:LEvalyn]] asks an important and difficult question, which is how Wikipedia can deal with productive but habitually uncivil editors when [[WP:CIVIL|civility]] is [[WP:5P4|the fourth pillar of Wikipedia]] and when blocks are preventive and not punitive.  Blocks of increasing length are one possible remedy, but only if it is expected that the editor will learn from the blocks, so that they prevent future incivility.  Some sort of probation is another possible remedy.  There is an inherent tension between the principle that blocks are preventive and not punitive and the principle that [[WP:CIVIL|civility]] is [[WP:5P4|the fourth pillar of Wikipedia]].  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:46, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

*'''Oppose 1RR/probation''' The edit that triggered this dispute was a little silly in nature. Lavalizard101's persistent pushing of the edit de-stabilised a featured article, so the benefit of the doubt should go to the editor defending the stable version of the article in this instance. The point the article was making was that the subject found posthumous fame, and that nuance was lost through Lavalizard101's edit. Someone mentioned above that it takes two to edit-war—that's true, but it only takes one person to start one, and the edit war starts when an editor reverts a revert rather than following BRD; so, while I'm not going to defend the name-calling, I would suggest that Lavalizard101 had escalated tensions by that stage and that should not be overlooked, and SchroCat's conduct needs to be considered in that context. I would be slightly more sympathetic (and more inclined to support a 1RR condition for SchrCat) if Lavalizard101 had initiated discussion after the first revert and been met by incivil language. Neither party has covered themselves in glory in this dispute, but I find the edit-warring and POINTy edits by Lavalizard101 more problematic than SchroCat's language. I suggest we draw a line under this report, with the recommendation that Lavalizard101 initiates an RFC if he wishes to pursue this; if he does then SchroCat needs to be respectful of that process. [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 04:03, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
*:{{tqq|editor defending the stable version of the article}} I think this quote, perhaps, is what gets to the heart of the dispute. Its about defending an article somebody worked very very very hard on. However, this is a Wiki - editors should not be approaching edit conflicts as a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]. It's a place for collaboration; articles cannot remain untouched, and, indeed, should not; my hobby is knitting, and it's very common that I'll spend over 10 hours on a simple toy, maybe over 100 on larger projects. And yet, when I make a l object for somebody else, and that somebody says "I think the embroidery on the eyes is a bit loose; we shouldn't give it to a child until you fix it" or "the cuff of this mitten is a bit short; can you reknit it?" Or even "there's not enough contrast between these two yarns, and it makes the pattern hard to see", then I take that feedback. Likewise, when I give that person the item, and it inevitably becomes a little pilled, felted, or discoloured, I don't throw a temper tantrum that they destroyed my hard work. Writing may be an art, and you may go all "the pen is mightier than the sword", but Wiki writing isn't an art -- it's a craft. We work with each other to create useful reference pages, we don't fight each other when one of the people we gave our article to darns our work in an attempt to strengthen it. [[User:GreenLipstickLesbian|<span style="color:#EB0533;">GreenLipstickLesbian</span>]][[User Talk:GreenLipstickLesbian|💌]][[Special:Contribs/GreenLipstickLesbian|🧸]] 05:29, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
*:::[[User:GreenLipstickLesbian]] makes an interesting and useful distinction between writing as an art and writing as a craft.  I am not sure how it applies to this conduct dispute, but it certainly should be kept in mind in a lot of content disputes.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 20:02, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
*::::@[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] I think it applies in the sense that if I were to walk into an art studio and start painting random canvasses, then I could not expect anything but a hostile reaction. However, if somebody were to patch up a hole in a mitten I had made, I wouldn't be upset that they had, inevitably, deviated from my vision. Likewise, a certain amount of hubris is accepted in the arts - but not crafts, and not in Wikipedia articles. Nothing is perfect.
*::::With that in mind, I'm going to '''support''' the 1RR/probation. I'm not convinced it will work, given that the last time Tim Riley and Schrocat were up here for incivility, and the Wikipedia community ended with a consensus to warn Tim Riley, Schrocat and Fortuna immediately went to his talkpage to compare the Wikipedia community members to {{tqq|dogs}} and encourage him, not to self reflect, but to blame the entire warning on socks[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tim_riley&oldid=1344162475#Warning_by_the_Wikipedia_community] -- I have to say, when you compare other editors to dogs, you can't be overly suprirsed when they start picturing {{tqq|imagined alliances}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Fortuna_imperatrix_mundi-20260318140000-Ritchie333-20260313124600]
*::::It's hard though - if it were just about trying to maintain the community-approved version of an article, and many opposers have said, then the 1RR might be very effective -- but when Schrocat and Tim see that an article they worked on might get serious criticism, they withdraw it from the FA process,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Shepherd%27s_pie/archive1&diff=prev&oldid=1340760137] with Schrocat in particular describing one reviewer as {{tqq|sub-standard}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SchroCat&diff=prev&oldid=1340766163].
*::::[[User:GreenLipstickLesbian|<span style="color:#EB0533;">GreenLipstickLesbian</span>]][[User Talk:GreenLipstickLesbian|💌]][[Special:Contribs/GreenLipstickLesbian|🧸]] 22:15, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
*:::::”{{tq|when Schrocat and Tim see that an article they worked on might get serious criticism, they withdraw it from the FA process}}”: I take it you don’t know much about the FAC process? It’s common for reviewers to suggest withdrawal from the FAC process if an article isn’t going to pass. Withdrawal is a courtesy to the coords (so they don’t have to action anything) and to other reviewers (so they don’t waste time reviewing something that isn’t going to pass). Given the comments in the review about the nominated article, it was withdrawn. This is in line with normal process at FAC. Please try to AGF about actions in processes that you’re not familiar with and feel free to ask anyone knowledgeable with the FAC process of creating quality content if this is normal procedure. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 22:50, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
*::::::It is; and withdrawing is fine and should be encouraged! but it's not exactly productive to say {{tqq|While the article is at FAC level, there are too many misguided sets of comments that are getting in the way of a smooth review}}. Not withdrawing because it's not going to pass, or withdrawing to save reviewer time - withdrawing in a way that makes a deliberate jab at the reviewers who have already donated their time. 
*::::::Simiarly- I'd get if you were just defending good encyclopedia content - but I remember watching your response once your AI-generated gibberish "upscaled" image[https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Rally_at_Trafalgar_Square,_part_of_the_Mud_March.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=1043839375] (seriously - read the text,[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/6/6d/20260209134607%21Rally_at_Trafalgar_Square%2C_part_of_the_Mud_March.jpg] it's laughingly obvious that an AI was used, or, failing that, that you deliberately falsified the text of an image to make it gibberish) was called out, your response was:
*::::::[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Rally_at_Trafalgar_Square,_part_of_the_Mud_March.jpg#c-SchroCat-20250618172800-BreadBreadMark-20250618165300](June 2025){{quote|There's no AI. Some retouching but no AI}}
*::::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mud_March_(suffragists)#c-SchroCat-20260209123700-Maddy_from_Celeste-20260209123000] (February 2026):
*::::::{{quote|none of these have had any form of AI alterations}}
*::::::before finally saying, after somebody reverted your change (Feb. 2026):
*::::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mud_March_(suffragists)#c-SchroCat-20260209140800-Belbury-20260209140500]
*::::::{{quote|Downgraded by a lack of thought. Well done}}
*::::::and, when they pointed out that your AI-generated text was illegible, and as such was inferior to the version you'd overwritten, you accused them of having {{tqq|deeply flawed}} judgement.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mud_March_(suffragists)#c-SchroCat-20260209144300-Belbury-20260209143900]
*::::::Now, maybe, AGF, you genuinely don't believe you used AI - if you're not familiar with how your photo editing software works, however, it should have been obvious before you uploaded it that you'd absolutely destroyed the integrity of the image, whether or not you did it with your own two hands is somewhat irrelevant -- but you were asked point blank, on the Commons page to say how you upscaled the image[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Rally_at_Trafalgar_Square,_part_of_the_Mud_March.jpg#c-Samwalton9-20260209142500-SchroCat-20250715044500]. 
*::::::That was last February; you have neglected to respond to that, quite reasonable, question. 
*::::::I know LLM abuse in FAs isn't something the community has much experience with, but I'm really struggling to see how an experienced editor such as yourself uses it, then either lies about it afterwards or doesn't have the skill necessary to understand that. It wasn't just an impulsive lie, either even the better part of a year after you were called out for using AI, you're still maintaining that you didn't. And insulting editors who are attempting to work with both [[MOS:AIUPSCALE]] and who are trying to maintain the encyclopedia's factual accuracy. 
*::::::There's a fair few comments been said by others on this forum recently, about editors who misuse AI and are, perhaps, less than forthcoming with the truth about that. I'll let you find those yourself. [[User:GreenLipstickLesbian|<span style="color:#EB0533;">GreenLipstickLesbian</span>]][[User Talk:GreenLipstickLesbian|💌]][[Special:Contribs/GreenLipstickLesbian|🧸]] 07:29, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
*:::::::Don’t ever accuse me of lying. You have absolutely no idea of the circumstances behind this which the diffs do not show. I’m going to withdraw from this BS. I don’t mind people discussing things they know and understand, but you’re making vast assumptions from a position of bad faith and accusing me of things you have no idea about. I’m out. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 07:43, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
*::::::::Then help me understand; tell me and the rest of the community how you upscaled that image. [[User:GreenLipstickLesbian|<span style="color:#EB0533;">GreenLipstickLesbian</span>]][[User Talk:GreenLipstickLesbian|💌]][[Special:Contribs/GreenLipstickLesbian|🧸]] 07:47, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
*:::::::Yes, I also got a sarcastic {{tq|Bravo for your efforts to make this worse}} from Schrocat for switching out these AI-upscaled images, after another editor had questioned their presence in what was that day's featured article. The two editors expressing concerns about the images on the talk page were both asked "not to bother" responding any further because Schrocat felt they could predict what we would say next ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mud_March_(suffragists)&diff=prev&oldid=1337447920],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mud_March_(suffragists)&diff=prev&oldid=1337465214]). If there's a recurring theme that Schrocat doesn't see any need to be civil or assume good faith when responding to concerns about articles that they've previously gotten to FA status, perhaps some kind of talk page restriction is needed that reflects that. [[User:Belbury|Belbury]] ([[User talk:Belbury|talk]]) 10:33, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
*::Yes, and I’m not really convinced that it’s “edit warring” at all from Lavalizard101 when they made three completely ''different'' edits; I see people referring to them as trying to force a “preferred wording” but to my eyes they are clearly trying to ''find'' a wording which addresses a specific comprehension problem. It is normal, collaborative editing for someone to say ‘I didn’t get this, I probably won’t be the only one, can we change it?’ and there is no need to meet that question with hostility and defensiveness. [[User:LEvalyn|<span style="color: #6703fc">~ le <small> 🌸</small> valyn</span>]] ([[User talk:LEvalyn|talk]]) 13:48, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
*:"{{xt|so, while I'm not going to defend the name-calling}}" I think this quote, perhaps, is what gets to the heart of the issue at ANI. I agree that editors who have worked hard to improve an article to FA have a better idea than newcomers as to what makes that article tick, and latitude should be given to them reverting edits that don't have consensus or don't improve the article. I'm just thinking calling the edits "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElizabeth_Lyon_%28criminal%29&diff=1342202436&oldid=1342202308%7C horseshit]" is counter-productive. And yes, I've been guiltily of this in the past myself, and I can see edits where [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hammond_organ&diff=prev&oldid=1321900265 my patience gets frayed]; I just resolve to try and do better next time. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 10:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

*'''Oppose 1RR/probation''' I'm in agreement with [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]]  on this. It has blown out of all proportion. I see SchroCrat self-reverted to prevent a 3RR breach and he should be commended. Let's draw a line under this and all move on to something constructive. [[User:Graham Beards|Graham Beards]] ([[User talk:Graham Beards|talk]]) 11:46, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
*:Its pretty clear from all the above comments and their own actions, over years of issues, that there is a long term problem here. Which unless addressed will move to a community ban in the not to distant future. I think its very constructive to work on ways to improve their situation and helps the pedia by not losing them as an editor. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 12:45, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
*::{{+1}} [[User:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned]] might be good reading. [[User:GreenLipstickLesbian|<span style="color:#EB0533;">GreenLipstickLesbian</span>]][[User Talk:GreenLipstickLesbian|💌]][[Special:Contribs/GreenLipstickLesbian|🧸]] 22:20, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

*'''Oppose 1RR/probation'''.  I also agree with [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]]'s description of the incident. SchroCat was responding to persistent, provocative edit warring to destabilize and degrade an FA article. I can never understand why experienced editors refuse to use the [[WP:BRD]] process, especially at FA and GA articles. I agree that the edit-warring and POINTy edits by Lavalizard101 were more problematic than SchroCat's language. -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 13:29, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

*'''Oppose 1RR/probation''' SchroCat is far too valuable and productive an editor to be subject to this. He is entitled to protect the quality of articles he has written or been involved with. And SchroCat is a grown man, he doesn't need a childminder either. I am sure Lavalizard101 means well with his edits and doesn't want a dispute, but echoing Graham's comment, let's move on....♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 13:11, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
*<del>Support probation/1RR per other supporters.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/~2026-68406-1|~2026-68406-1]] ([[User talk:~2026-68406-1#top|talk]]) 13:44, 18 March 2026 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--></del><small><sup>Sockstrike per [[WP:PROJSOCK]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=176224970 blocked] by [[User:Voorts]]). '''—'''[[User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">''Serial Number''</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:#8B0000">54129</span>]]<sup style="color:black;"> (wake up Fortuna)</sup> 14:18, 18 March 2026 (UTC)</sup></small> 
*'''Oppose both''' i think a sanction here will end up degrading article content, the ultimate goal of the project. Civility is more than polite wording of comments and i think the initial incivility in this case was on the part of {{u|Lavalizard101}}. Despite [[WP:FAOWN]]'s warning to "take particular care" they were impatient to get their change into the article with reversions. I don't think this treating the content creators or reviewers with consideration and respect. The [[WP:5P5|fifth pillar]] leads me to believe that when there is an application of the rules that would end up degrading content then the solution is to change the rules. Maybe FAOWN needs improvement? Ironically i don't think this article should have passed FA review to begin with. But resolving that might take ''months'' and requires SchroCat's input. No hurry tho and i need to be willing do most all the work. [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 13:50, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''Oppose 1RR/probation''' per BettyLogan. I've pretty much given up responding above to spurious allegations of partisanship, as ironically the thread directly below this proves my approach is to the value of the edits an editor makes rather than obsessing over imagined alliances (nor do I play [[Peekaboo]], either). But I agree that Lavalizard101's edits—that started this particular mudwrestle——flew directly in the face of an established editoral consensus; an uncollegiate atmosphere was probably inevitable from the start.  '''—'''[[User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">''Serial Number''</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:#8B0000">54129</span>]]<sup style="color:black;"> (wake up Fortuna)</sup> 14:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''Oppose 1RR/probation''' - I'm not aware of any mass edit-warring, by SchroCat. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:06, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', these don't address the issue. While this appears worse than ordinary incivility, there's little more frustrating than seeing an article you spent many hours on gradually worsening (speaking generally, not re Lavalizard's edits). A solution would be protecting FAs, or making them 'consensus required'. These articles are meant to be 'perfect' or 'finished', why leave them as open to editing as stubs? If lots of changes or updates are needed, that's what the FAR process is for. [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Kowal2701|contribs]]) 23:02, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
*:At the very least, put an [[WP:EDITNOTICE|edit notice]] informing about [[WP:FAOWN]] and pointing people to the talk page [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Kowal2701|contribs]]) 23:07, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
*:It seems to me that creating a separate class of articles or insulating certain editors from scrutiny is not a productive solution; all contributors, regardless of the status of the articles they work on, are expected to follow the same community standards and behavioral expectations. While featured articles and the editors who develop them are valuable to the project, that work does not place anyone above established norms, and concerns about incivility should be addressed consistently. We also saw a similar issue a few months ago regarding capitalization, where well-intentioned editors lost sight of the project's guiding principles, and I think that serves as a useful reminder that adherence to core policies should remain our priority. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 23:15, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
*::Agreed in principle, I’m not saying there shouldn’t be any sanctions, idk, but I think it’d be more constructive to address the apparent root cause of the frustration and corresponding incivility [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Kowal2701|contribs]]) 23:40, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
*:I disagree that the featured article process is intended to label articles as "perfect" or "finished". Nor do I agree that significant changes can only be made as a part of a featured article review. This runs counter to the crowd-sourced nature of Wikipedia. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 23:36, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''Support''' the restriction Ritchie333 proposes, as well as '''support''' community banning SchroCat but will drop my support for both if they agree to moderate and remain civil in future. [[User:Acalamari|Acalamari]] 23:24, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
* '''Support probation'''. I have been trying to look into the broader behavioural patterns. I don't think we can treat this as a single interaction with Lavalizard101. In the other content dispute at Elizabeth Lyon, for example, in addition to that rude edit summary, I see civility issues at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elizabeth_Lyon_(criminal)#Infobox the Talk page discussion]. In contrast to Lavalizard101, who is able to articulate the anti-infobox argument politely -- {{tq|there isn't enough information for an infobox to be useful}} -- SchroCat's adds clear hostility: {{tq|Because it was pointless. Devoid of useful information, counter-intuitive and had repeated information. It's one of those cases where no idiotbox is the far better situation.}} "Idiotbox" (like the "excrescence" in the edit summary) is at least about the infobox rather than the other user, so it's not a direct personal attack, but it needlessly raises the temperature of the discussion. Elsewhere, I also notice terse responses that become rude ones in both discussions about the images at [[Talk:Mud March (suffragists)]].
:It seems that, once an article passes FA review, SchroCat takes that as proof that the article is perfect and no one can ever have a good-faith conversation about further improvements. That goes way beyond what [[WP:FAOWN]] can license. WP:FAOWN says that {{tq|Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not necessarily constitute ownership.}} You're still supposed to civilly explain the sources and policies. And it's still very possible for sources, policies, and a culture of constant improvement to support changing an FA.
:Civility is one of our pillars. It defines who we are. We must do ''something''. [[User:LEvalyn|<span style="color: #6703fc">~ le <small> 🌸</small> valyn</span>]] ([[User talk:LEvalyn|talk]]) 02:33, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''Support probation''' as a last chance; I generally agree with PackMecEng and Acalamari here and believe that a community ban will be the logical next step if the behaviour doesn't improve. Probation seems the best alternative, as imperfect as it may be. [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|talk]]) 06:35, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
* Yes, I stepped over any reasonable civility line which I shouldn’t have. It’s partly a long story behind it with some bad news I'd received about ten minutes before, and I lashed out when I shouldn't but partly because the OP was, by ignoring BRD and STATUS QUO, being disruptive. If they had gone to the talk page after they were first reverted and not kept pushing changes in article space, I would not have reacted as I did. I should not have been so easily triggered by that behaviour, and I dealt with it badly. I will try to do better in future. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 07:03, 19 March 2026 (UTC)