Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae, see MOS:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP:AutoEd.

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Marcelus

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Marcelus

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Pofka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Marcelus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive316#TrangaBellam (administrator explanation regarding the most recent sanctioning (in Poland-related topic): It "applies in the mainspace and relates to all articles related to Eastern Europe. (...) This restriction is indefinite, but I will be willing to reconsider after three months with no violations and no edit warring in other topic areas." (diff).

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 23:52, 12 March 2023. A proposal discussion was started by user Amakuru regarding my request to change article name of a Lithuanian noble Paweł Holszański (member of Lithuanian Alšėniškiai noble family) from a Polish language version (Paweł Holszański) to a Lithuanian language version (Povilas Alšėniškis) because per Google search it is WP:COMMONNAME (see: screenshots) and he was a Lithuanian noble.
2. 09:00, 13 March 2023. Soon the proposal was opposed by user Marcelus who provided links to the Google searches by purposefully selecting "Search pages in English only" and this way excluding all Lithuanian language sources (which use Povilas Alšėniškis). This, of course, dramatically affected numbers and Lithuanian version was presented as allegedly not the most common version (this is clearly very important for other voters and movers). Since Google Scholar (and Google books) have too few sources about this Lithuanian noble, I think such action was not Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
3. 09:02, 13 March 2023. He clarified: "Strong oppose", so likely unwilling to WP:COMPROMISE.
4. 18:11, 13 March 2023. Following my additional explanation why the renaming is necessary, Marcelus replied and inserted statement that "Paweł Holszański was a Polish-speaking Lithuanian noble". This is very strong argument how his name should be written, right? Nevertheless, I found no such information in WP:RS (that he was a Polish, not Lithuanian language speaker) and requested Marcelus to provide WP:VERIFIABLE WP:RS supporting his claims to prove that it is not his own WP:OR or to cross that out.
5. 20:28, 14 March 2023. Marcelus replied, but ignored my request about WP:RS, so it began looking like WP:IDONTHEARYOU, non-WP:NPOV WP:POVPUSH WP:NATIONALISM (one of its examples: "Famous person is or is not a member of group").
6. 20:59, 14 March 2023: again ignored my request.
7. 19:20, 15 March 2023: again ignored my request.
8. 18:44, 16 March 2023: again ignored my request.
9. 19:59, 16 March 2023: again ignored my request.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 22:08, 11 February 2023 for WP:EW in Lithuania, Poland topics.
2. 01:21, 17 July 2022 for WP:EW in Lithuania, Poland topics.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on Date (see the system log linked to above).
• Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on Date
• Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on Date.
• Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict, on Date.
• Placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There also was a report two months ago regarding Marcelus's editing of content in Lithuania, Poland topics (see: archived discussion). Multiple users agreed that Marcelus violated WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:POVPUSH, WP:GRUDGE, WP:ICANTHEARYOU, WP:NOTHERE by trying to insert claims to the article that Zigmas Zinkevičius (personally described by Marcelus as "chauvinistic pig": 1, 2) is described as "anti-Polish", but Marcelus did not provide WP:RS describing him exactly as such. The report was flooded with text and eventually archived without a clear decision. For understanding what happened back then, I recommend reading statements by Cukrakalnis (reporter) and Turaids (initially uninvolved editor).

Since limited scope, time sanctions don't stop Marcelus, I think indefinite WP:TOPICBAN should be applied in Poland, Lithuania, Eastern Europe topics.

(moved; reply to Volunteer Marek) Hello, I lately discussed about the situation with an administrator at his talk page (diff) and I was suggested to file WP:AE. I think that persistently not providing WP:RS is not disagreement. Similar situation occurred to Cukrakalnis and Turaids as well (described above). -- Pofka (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

@Isabelle Belato: Hello, being recognized as one of only two finest editors in "Lithuania" topic myself and Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia, I think it is unacceptable to use personal interpretations to prove POV/insert content and it raises concern about Reliability of Wikipedia.

As described in Cukrakalnis and Turaids situation recently, this is not the first time Marcelus act without providing WP:RS to support his actions in Lithuania, Poland, Eastern Europe topics. I did not participate in Cukrakalnis-Turaids-Marcelus dispute and only saw evidence provided about it at WP:AN, so I cannot describe these users statements here as well by having only 500 words. I pinged them with wiki links, so I think they could explain what happened back then themselves if it is necessary, but I think evidence provided at WP:AN also describe it well. WP:EV for which Marcelus was sanctioned was in the same topics as these concerns about his content-related actions are being made.

Usage of WP:EV, personal interpretations and ignoring good faith requests to WP:VERIFY them in the same topics seems like WP:NOTHERE to me and WP:IDONTHEARYOU is related with this. Or are we going to freely allow Marcelus to describe any Lithuanians as Polish-speakers, "chauvinistic pig" and anti-Polish without WP:RS/WP:VERIFY? -- Pofka (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus: Your expansion of the article do not prove that Povilas Alšėniškis was a Polish-speaking Lithuanian noble as you claimed (and by the way it was performed with offline sources when at talk page you persistently refused to WP:VERIFY your claim). Your sanction related with Zigmas Zinkevičius was applied after a later report when you continued your actions in the same article (see: HERE), so the initial report was really left without a clear decision. It is easy to check. Request to evaluate activity is not negative commenting. -- Pofka (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

All I asked (six times) was WP:VERIFABLE WP:RS to ensure that he was a Polish-speaker. -- Pofka (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1]

Discussion concerning Marcelus

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Marcelus

Pofka created WP:RMT ([2]) regarding the Paweł Holszański page, undoubtedly knowing that this is a controversial move that needs to be discussed, as it is not the first discussion about what name should be used in article about historical figure of similar background. I protested againt RMT by checking the results from Google Search and Scholar in English (per WP:COMMONNAME, in short: we use English sources) which were radically different ([3], [4]). When this was moved to WP:RM#C I reiterated this argument ([5]), I also gave a brief historical context as to why I think the Polish-sounding version of PH's name is so popular, then a bit later I also added results from Google Books ([6]). In the meantime, I expanded the article on the basis of the sources available to me ([7]) and told Pofka that he would find the answer to his question about the sources there ([8]).

On March 11, 2022, Pofka received a total ban for Lithuania and Poland for attacks on me ([9]), but also for previous offenses (similar situation as now, I explain why the "Polish" name is popular Pofka attacks me for Polish nationalism, etc.) Pofka since October 12, 2022 is also blocked completely on lt.wiki for personal attacks ([10]). The ban on en.wiki was lifted on January 5, 2023, which I supported ([11]), Pofka declared: I learned from it, and I'll not negatively comment about other fellow editors.

Contrary to what Pofka says the Zinkevičius case did not end "without a clear decision." - I and Cukrakalnis were blocked for EW [edit: ok, I confused the timeline, we were blocked after another report on me, link, nonetheless I wasn't sanctioned]. And it was flooded mainly by WP:EXHAUST by the other side (mainly the issue of the 'chauvinist pig', an epithet I used on the talk page and admitted I shouldn't have; in no version of the article was ZZ referred to as anti-Polish which I clarified: yes and he isn't called that in the article, only his policies are described as "nationalist" and "anti-Polish"). This the reason for my 0RR after the last AE. Pofka wants me to be penalized 3 times for the same thing.

Pofka also used my 0RR to get the upper hand in content discussions (1, 2,3. When I asked him to stop doing this, he simply deleted my question from his talk page). There were also some occassional WP:HOAX accusations ([12]), but these are thigns I used to when interacting with Pofka.

I reported this to HJ_Mitchell without asking for any sanctions on Pofka, because I think there is no problem for both of us to edit on Wikipedia, even more so in a topic where there are not many active users. I still hope so.

Pofka was an active participant in the discussion, which is easy to verify, moreover he incited other users against me (possible WP:CANVASS)Marcelus (talk) 09:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

@Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk · contribs) Please read: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Święciany_massacre_and_others; Cukrakalnis (talk · contribs) has been making disruptive changes in the WW2 in Eastern Europe space lately; responds to my pointing it out with an attack. I don't think I crossed the line in this case. I am one of the few users patrolling this space and able to spot these kinds of edits. You can check my edit history to see that I spend a lot of time calmly explaining why specific changes are wrong, especially since the last AE. Marcelus (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cukrakalnis (talk · contribs), I check your edits from time to time, especially on controversial topics, but I don't stalk you. As for your examples of my alleged violation of 0RR, I cannot agree. The first one kept the Lithuanian names you added, I added the Polish ones, which was discussed on a t/p (Talk:Glinciszki massacre#Names of the towns). The second example is a restoration of Category:Waffen-SS divisions stores all SS divisions in numerical order, I wrote that in the description of the edit. There is no reason to remove it.Marcelus (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@El C (talk · contribs), many people suggest that my edits are "problematic", but few give specific examples. I agree that I have not always been 100% ok on t/p etc. But I would like to point out that this was evaluated in the last AE, I suffer the consequences. Punishing me a second time for the same thing would be excessive. Nonetheless I will defend my editing on main space (except for overusing revert).Marcelus (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Is there a revert here? The restriction on Marcelus is 0RR. But all the diffs provided by Pofka are ... talk page comments. This is just a complaint that Marcelus dares to disagree with Pofka (on talk pages, civilly). Pofka also, when referencing the restriction, quotes only irrelevant portions (that it's indefinite etc) but manages to omit what the restriction actually is. Maybe a WP:BOOMERANG is in order. Volunteer Marek 01:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The exact comment from the admin on their talk page [13], made on March 14, was: " Your two posts between them are over a thousand words. If you want me to take any action, please make your point concisely. Preferably a tenth of that length. Otherwise you can file at WP:AE but note that walls of text are not accepted there either.". Volunteer Marek 01:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Statement by TB

There is nothing to see here. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

That section is not really evidence of "battleground mentality", a word thrown around too carelessly these days. Editors are humans — not androids — and tempers flare; as long as things resolve, all's fair and fine. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Shadow of the Starlit Sky

Hello, I am an editor who in uninvolved with these interactions between Marcelus and Pofka. However, I have collaborated with Pofka once before while WP:NPOV-ing Gediminas.

I would like to say that I have looked through Pofka's edit history, block log and global account log. It seems as if Pofka has been indef banned in other wikis in the past for incivility and ad hominem attacks ([14]).

And, Marcelus isn't immune to blame, either. This interaction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marcelus#Your_evidence) seems like an indication of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality to me. Not to mention his past conflicts regarding Polonization of Lithuanian names somewhat suggests a WP:NATIONALIST mentality regarding this user too.

I think that an interaction ban between Pofka and Marcelus may be necessary at this point.

Shadow of the Starlit Sky (Talk) 03:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Now that I look at the other Admins' responses, I think that maybe a one-way IBAN from preventing Pofka from interacting with Marcelus may be necessary. Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I just read what Pofka posted on @HJ Mitchell's talk page- I will look into that soon.Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

But then, the thing I'm concerned about is that Pofka's made tons of constructive edits to Lithuania-related articles in the past, so banning him might greatly affect WikiProject Lithuania.

I still want Pofka to stop some of his WP:TENDENTIOUS editing at times, though, judging from the other admins' responses.

--Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

(moved; in reply to Ppt91) THIS. Banning Pofka would greatly affect WikiProject Lithuania in a negative way, but Pofka seems to need to be reminded to WP:AGF. Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Isabelle BelatoYes, I understand. Sorry for any inconviniences caused; I am relatively new to editing Wikipedia as I only joined 2 weeks ago. Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Courcelles, @HJ Mitchell, @Isabelle Belato, @Ealdgyth, I still do think Marcelus should get a logged warning, though. He's been quite battleground-ey against another editor in the past (not Pofka)- User:Cukrakalnis. If you look at Cukrakalnis' talk page, you could see the comments under "Category:Non-German infantry divisions of the Waffen-SS" that Marcelus posted- they seem quite battleground-y and incivil at times (e.g. "That's your third attempt on pushing a WP:FRINGE theory")

However, in this situation, Cukrakalnis also seems to be in the wrong- he also seems to be using personal attacks against Marcelus by using statements such as "P.S. Marcelus, stop stalking everything that I do."

Furthermore, Marcelus and Cukrakalnis' incivility is not limited to the current situation is not limited to now; past talk page archives show other instances of Marcelus being incivil to Cukrakalnis and vice versa (e.g. see section "Kołyszko" under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cukrakalnis/Archives/2021/November and section "ZZ" under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cukrakalnis/Archives/2023/February).

Again, I do believe Marcelus should get a logged warning to WP:AGF, but for different reasons- incivility towards Cukrakalnis (Cukrakalnis should also get the warning too, as he has used personal attacks against Marcelus before as well). Or, maybe, Marcelus and Cukrakalnis can get a 2 way IBAN due to their past history of stating personal attacks at each other. Either way, I just want CONSTRUCTIVE contributions to Lithuania/Poland-related topics by these editors (Pofka, Cukrakalnis, Marcelus, etc.) to continue and the personal attacks to end. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 11:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus, I have looked at your past interactions with Cukrakalnis before. Although I appreciate your desire to collaborate with Cukrakalnis, unfortunately, some of your comments to Cukrakalnis seem to be incivil. Again, it is COMPLETELY FINE to disagree with Cukrakalnis' views, but it's not fine to insult Cukrakalnis about it.

@Cukrakalnis, This definitely sounds problematic on Marcelus' parts. However, I do believe that you could definitely be more civil towards Marcelus and avoid personal attacks in the future.

Because of this history of past bickering/personal attacks, I'd like to propose a 2 way IBAN between Cukrakalnis and Marcelus as well.

-- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 18:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Courcelles, @HJ Mitchell, @Isabelle Belato, @Ealdgyth, @El C, @Callanecc, would you mind if I took this to WP:RFCL? -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 03:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Ppt91

This case has little if any merit. In addition to what others have already said about Pofka misinterpreting the extent of/nature of the original sanction, I am also troubled by Pofka's overall framing of these spelling disputes which to me exhibits a degree of WP:RGW mentality. From the diffs presented, the most inappropriate and inflamed comment by Marcelus I see is the one including the term chauvinistic pig to describe a Lithuanian historian. Pofka's reasoning behind the RM thread, on the other hand, appeared combative from the outset, declaring that Polonization of a Lithuanian noble name here is absolutely unjustified followed by a flurry of charged responses to Marcellus and several other opposing authors which all felt like WP:BLUDGEON to prove a point. That said, I think that Pofka's contributions to Lithuanian subjects writ large are valuable, so I am not supportive of a boomerang that would restrict their work in an en-wiki area with few specialists. They might need to be reminded to be civil and WP:AGF before escalating an exchange with other editors it into an unnecessary dispute. Ppt91^talk 01:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Statement by GizzyCatBella

• @Courcelles:, @HJ Mitchell:, @Isabelle Belato:, @Ealdgyth:

I'm noticing consensus tipping slightly towards the restoration of the topic ban among you admin folks. I understand that, and I understand that Pofka did precisely what they promised not to do in their Topic Ban appeal but can I ask you, admin folks, to offer Pofka another chance? A powerful logged warning + a one-way interaction ban with Marcelus for example? (with possibility of appeal in 6 months) Pursuing that particular editor (Marcelus) appears to be the cause of Pofka's problems. We have only a few editors interested in Lithuania's topic area (it's a small country), and I believe Pofka's contributions are important. In my humble opinion, if they stay away from Marcelus, that will be enough. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Cukrakalnis

@Shadow of the Starlit Sky This is relevant: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1104#User:Marcelus repeatedly breaking WP:NPA and doubling-down on it. I myself asked for a one-way WP:IBAN, whereby Marcelus is banned from interacting with me due to his chronic and intractable hostile disposition towards me. This was already on 17 July 2022. Regarding P.S. Marcelus, stop stalking everything that I do., I will just say that Marcelus has said the following words to me: I am going through your edits persistently because I don't trust you as an editor on 16 July 2022. And his actions since only prove his "attention" towards me. In addition, Marcelus has broken the 0RR imposed on him in the following edits:

1. 27 March 2023 Marcelus re-added Polish names for villages and tiny hamlets in Lithuania, thus reverting my 27 February 2023 edit.
2. 23:07, 25 March 2023 Marcelus re-added a category I had removed on 22:21, 25 March 2023 (I removed it because it was a parent category of another more specific category already in the article).

Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Result concerning Marcelus

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• This report is, quite frankly, hard to follow and rather a mess at the moment. We need diffs that show actual problems, and right now I’m not seeing it in this filing. Also, ever as the filer, please comment only in your own section. Courcelles (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  After a longer, rested look, I think this needs a boomerang, either a logged warning or a little stronger response to Pofka for WP:TEND issues in their editing and conduct in this RM and this AE filing. No actual evidence of current wrongdoing has been issued agains Marcelus. Courcelles (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  Final analysis, my opinion is to log a warning to Pofka for WP:TEND editing and close this with no other action. Courcelles (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• The provided diffs appear to show a content dispute over a single page move nothing more. In addition, as Volunteer Marek pointed our, the sanction Pofka is seeking to enforce is one of WP:0RR, and not of a specific contentius topic violation. Pofka, I'd recommend you take HJ Mitchell's advice, here, to heart. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 01:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Pofka: The only problematic thing I see in your report of Marcelus is their refusal to provide the sources you asked for. I see Marcelus has now clarified why he didn't do so, but I'd like to remind them that, if you do have the source, and it's easy to post it (apparently it was one of the sources they added to the article), then you should present them when requested, especially in a MR. On the other hand, it worries me that Pofka continuously use past sanctions against Marcelus as arguments to push during content discussion, the same battleground behaviour they were topic-banned for. Those supporting the removal of your topic ban were very clear that, if this behaviour repeated, sanctions would likely be imposed again. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 12:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• @Marcelus: you are slightly over the word limit count. Please trim your response, and a reminder you'll need to request an extension for further replies. Thanks. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 12:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• I'm allowing an extension of 200 words so that Marcelus can reply to the more recent statements. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 23:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Shadow of the Starlit Sky: Please keep your comments on your own section in the future, thanks. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 23:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Shadow of the Starlit Sky: According to my count you are about 230 words over the limit. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that Pofka's reaction to my clarification of Marcelus's restriction, and my request to stop bringing it up where it wasn't relevant, was to dump 1,000 words of accusations on my talk page relating to a content dispute on one article, and then to file this request, where no uninvolved admin has seen any sanctionable misconduct by Marcelus. This is, in my opinion, suggestive of a battleground mentality. I would support a boomerang. I'm tempted by the idea of an interaction ban but I don't want to impede constructive discussion on article talk pages. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• I see nothing sanctionable in Marcellus' behavior here. I'm not quite to a boomerang on Pofka, although at the very least they need to stop this battleground behavior. Good contributions in one area should not shield an editor and allow them to perpetuate battleground behavior. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
• @HJ Mitchell:, @Isabelle Belato:, @Ealdgyth:. This seems to have stalled. As I said above, I don't see much to do here besides log a warning to Pofka, but one way or another we should get moving towards how we want to close this. Courcelles (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  • A logged warning is fine with me. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  While I feel that a warning is kicking the can down the road, there appears to be no desire to sanction Pofka, as they are a good contributor in the area. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 15:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think a warning is sufficient, but I would not oppose it if nobody else sees a need for tangible action. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  As my answer implies, I'd be in favor of restoring their tban, as, to me, it seems Pofka is doing exactly what they promised not to do in their unban request. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 23:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  Since I'm seeing no further input from other editors, administrators, or otherwise, I'll close this soon with a consensus for a logged warning but no consensus for any form of sanction. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  I can see the argument in favor or restoring, actually. I’m not seeing quite enough to have imposed one de novo, but restoring one requires less rope be given. Courcelles (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm torn. Pofka contributes well in the mainspace. Much like I was loathe to topic ban Marcelus because the issue was with his edit-warring rather than his writing or discussion style, I'd prefer something with more finesse than a blanket topic ban. I could live with an absolute final warning accompanied by a a not-quite interaction ban with Marcelus (not to mention him, revert him, or directly reply to him but I don't want to ban Pofka from discussing content on the same talk page as Marcelus). I don't want to hamper good-faith discussion by just removing everyone from the topic area but the personalisation of disputes needs to stop. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Considering GizzyCatBella's statement, as well as yours, HJ Mitchell, I'm willing to give Pofka a bit more rope. I think a one-way IBAN is fine for the purposes you want, HJ, as it still allows both users to edit the same page and participate in discussions, as long as Pofka does not directly reply to Marcelus. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 22:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  I would be satisfied with that as long as it was clear that Pofka can contribute to the same discussions as Marcelus (within reason). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• I've not reviewed this report, like, at all. But as the admin who originally imposed the TBAN on Pofka, I should note that that TBAN was imposed after so many warnings (albeit informal, unlogged ones). I was away during their appeal, so didn't get to opine, but I'm not sure I'd have opposed since, on the face of it, it looks okay'ish and I'm all for 2nd chances. So FWIW. But on the other hand, my sense at least, is that Marcelus' overall editing in the topic area is likely no less problematic. I don't really have an opinion on what to do here, specifically, as __ is usually in the details, but I'd like to nevertheless stress that, recently, ArbCom did emphasize on robust enforcement as opposed to the much easier route of warning users with a problematic past. El_C 19:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• I can't see any option here other than restoring the topic ban. There is no rope left to give to an editor who has been warned and then topic banned and then appealed the topic ban on the premise that they'd learnt from it and so it's no longer necessary. One of the supporters of the appeal even said that Pofka should be given the opportunity to demonstrate that [Pofka] can edit in that topic area without commenting on other editors, another one that said Pofka needs to edit dispassionately and another three (that's all of them now) who mention or infer that lifting the TBAN is giving some rope. It's clear from this report, the admin discussion above, that Pofka is, in fact, unable to edit dispassionately without commenting on others and so has used up the rope that was given to them when the appeal was accepted. Given that the TBAN should be restored. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)