Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

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 Hijiri88

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

TH1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Hijiri88 (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

[[1]] :

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

1. November 23 IBAN violation – directly links to and asks about the IBAN between Hijiri88 and TH1980
2. November 23 IBAN violation – Hijiri88 elaborates on that link on his talk page and indirectly accuses me of hounding him AFTER the closure of the Arbcom case and AFTER the IBAN was implemented (he expressly says that he is one of the parties of the IBAN)
3. November 23 IBAN violation – Hijiri88 elaborates on that link posted above and accuses me of "one-way hounding"
4. November 23 IBAN violation – Hijiri88 falsely accuses the person who he was IBANed with during the aforementioned Arbcom case and who he is still IBANed with of presenting "tainted evidence" during the Arbcom case

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. June 20 2020 Hijiri88 was previously indefinitely blocked for doing the same thing as he just did recently.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I was informed by e-mail of a series of recent IBAN violations by Hijiri88. According to Wikipedia IBAN policy, IBANed users are prohibited from making "reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly". However, the links show that Hijiri88 has repeatedly made clear reference to me directly and indirectly. There are three BANEX exceptions: "asking an administrator to take action against a violation, asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban, appealing the ban". However, none of these exceptions apply to the talk page posts or arbitration committee elections that I linked above.

Furthermore, directly linking to the IBAN in question and repeatedly describing it as being the result of "one way harassment" is an inaccurate personal attack. The Arbcom case presented dozens of diffs and incidents of Hijiri88 harassing me and stalking me to articles.[2][3] Hijiri88 was also later found to have repeatedly evaded the IBAN by explicitly asking other users to make IBAN-violating edits for him.[4][5] Furthermore, Hijiri88 has been subject to six IBANs over the last decade, all of which were two-way.

All these points above are proof that Hijiri88 should not be allowed to openly describe this as "one way harassment" as he repeatedly did above. I have never needed more than one IBAN and I have never been sanctioned for violating the IBAN, whereas Hijiri88 was at one point indefinitely blocked for mentioning the IBAN in essentially the same manner he is again doing right now. I have been told that the admin Wugapodes noted just a few months ago that Hijiri88's older IBANs "would be unremarkable if not for the continued imposition of IBANs and the repeated inability of Hijiri to abide by them." TH1980 (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[6]

Discussion concerning Hijiri88

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 Hijiri88

It was my understanding that asking (potential) arbitrators about their receptivity to a future appeal of this IBAN was, by definition, covered by WP:BANEX. The last diff referred to by User:Dennis Brown as being problematic is elaboration in response to an apparent misunderstanding from the candidate. I am sorry that I was unable to report the hounding in 2016 via the proper fora, but I felt the need to explain the context of why that was the case in this situation; if it is the consensus that mentioning it on-wiki in a form like the above diff is itself a violation of the IBAN, I will not do so going forward. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: Understood, and thank you. You will appreciate why I am choosing to say no more on this matter. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Hijiri88

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

• The first three diffs don't bother me, likely fall under "usual exceptions". The last diff [7], is a problem, as they are making it personal and making claims of being hounded, etc. So the first three demonstrate a pattern, but again, it is that one that clearly breaches the restriction. I'm not lost of the fact that he is understandably frustrated by the iban, which has been in place some time now, but this isn't the way to go about getting it lifted, via violating it. Not sure what the best response is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hijiri88, this is why I said the first three weren't a big deal but once you start making personal claims against the person you are iban'ed with, you are no longer discussing the iban in the abstract, and BANEX no longer applies. My compatriots below are a bit more forgiving in this, perhaps, and I won't buck consensus, but realize that there is every justification to block you 2 to 4 weeks, based on the past record and the current situation. That isn't harsh, that is a typical response from AE. I'm not opposed to just a warning (although I find it EXTREMELY lenient), but you need to realize how lucky you are, and redouble your efforts to abide by the iban. Just drop the subject completely. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably @Hijiri88: just needs to agree to drop the stick. I think they've shown the continued IBAN is still needed. Don't see why they need to keep picking at this scab. It'll never heal. This is as bad as the conduct of a now banned user who had to bring up the past repeatedly. Learn to let go. Leave it in the past. Move forward. Wikipedia is not therapy.--Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with logged warning. @Hijiri88: Nothing further about TH1980. Please. This behavior argues for continuing the IBAN. If it continues, an indef block is a certainty, and it would be nearly impossible to appeal. Please do find something else to do/think about. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is certainly not ideal, though I do note that in at least one case (diff #1), Hijiri88 was actually invited to go into specifics by the candidate, so there also may be some confusion around this. Asking about a possible future appeal is at least arguably covered by BANEX, but using that as a platform to complain about how the editor covered by the interaction ban behaved at the time is very much out of line. Basically, I would say this should be treated as a final warning to Hijiri88 to drop it, period. If you want to file an appeal, file one, making sure to discuss yourself and not your gripes about the other editor. It either will succeed, or it won't. Other than that, leave it alone and stay well away from anything that could even be remotely interpreted as you discussing TH1980. BANEX is not intended as a "back door" way for you to complain about and pick at them; don't use it that way. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I want to be very clear, in regards to Dennis Brown, that this is not intended as leniency so much as recognition that a block of a couple weeks would be rather pointless. Rather, this is intended as a logged, on-the-record warning to Hijiri88 that this was a violation of the interaction ban, and that if future violations of the ban occur, the result is very likely indeed to be an indefinite block; this is a last chance. That is of course not the ending that I would want to see, so I would like to make it very clear so that, hopefully, that outcome can be avoided. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• To me the first diff[8] is a only not a violation of the IBAN if you take into account the motive stated after the fact. The way it is worded does not seem like an appeal or request for clarification, rather an attempt to assess the candidate based on the topic. I am willing to assume good faith that this was indeed an attempt at asking about a future reprieve. I also take into consideration that they were asked to elaborate by the candidate, though that is typically not an invitation to discuss a matter that one is banned from.

The last diff[9] is a clear violation. This does not fall under BANEX and they are very much stating claims about the person they are in an IBAN with.

I feel either a short block or a very stern and logged warning is called for. I also feel that this incident will negatively affect any future appeal made anytime soon. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with HJ Mitchell's recommended block duration of 2 weeks. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This was clearly a violation of the interaction ban. I see the argument against a block and would generally be sympathetic to it, but Hijiri has a long history and extensive block log for interpersonal disputes which have interfered with the business of the encyclopaedia. I feel a block of some duration is necessary to uphold ArbCom's decision to impose the ban, to be clear that the conduct was unacceptable, and to enforce the distance between Hijiri and TH1980 that the interaction ban would have been providing had it not been violated. I would suggest a duration of a week or two. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 AmirahBreen

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

AshiK Jonathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

AmirahBreen (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

WP:Edit-warring

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

1. [10]
2. [11]
3. [12]
4. [13]
5. [14]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. [15]

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This user has been edit-warring against long-standing consensus, without waiting to gain new consensus in talk page for his or her radical changes, despite being reverted by multiple editors in the span of less than 24 hours. Also I believe there are additional restrictions about this topic that the user is not respecting.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[16]

Discussion concerning AmirahBreen

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 AmirahBreen

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

There have been long term issues with her editing, including possible COIs in the horn of Africa topic area. There has been at least one BLPN thread and at least one ANI thread related to her editing in that topic area. Unfortunately, I'm stuck on mobile for the time being, so pulling diffs and such is going to be difficult. The diff below shows insertion of WP:SYNTH and edit warring. The history of that article around that time, and a bit before shows a pattern of NPOV editing and edit warring with no discussion, or ignoring previous discussion. Due to their editing, and lack of any resolution of behavior issues, I just removed any articles they edited from my watchlist.

[17]

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive325#Mohamed_Abdullahi_Mohamed

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1065#WP:NPOV,_WP:OWN,_and_copyright_violations_at_Mohamed_Abdullahi_Mohamed

Statement by GizzyCatBella

General note - a brand new account (initiated 11 days ago[18]) with 30 edits to his credit [19] not permitted to edit the Israel-Palestine conflict area (see -->[20]) but is loosely allowed to post enforcement requests here concerning the above-mentioned topic?

This loophole needs to be corrected by ArbCom eventually.

PS - @HJ Mitchell - please, keep in mind the standing of the filing person while deliberating further sanctions such as page ban and/or longer-term partial block against AB. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella, I considered it, but this a pretty cut-and-dried violation rather than a matter of framing. Of course, if anyone wants to make a case against the OP I'll consider it with an open mind. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, the violation was very clear, and you handled it correctly. (with perhaps a minor point that now the blocked editor is not able to comment in his defence for the next 72 hours). But I'm only concerned about possible loopholes where potential throw-away accounts, not risking anything, such as WP:BOOMERANG as an example, freely arrive here to file enforcement requests. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I do have an idea who the filer might be. Do you want me to present the case here below or at SPI? - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @HJ Mitchell I filed it here -->[21] - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nableezy - ..non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions. (WP:ARBPIA) - Is A/R/E considered a noticeboard? If yes, then the above applies, if not, we have a loophole. Anyway, I filed an SPI, see above for the link. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

I agree with the block (and there are way too many tags on that page), I also echo the concerns of GizzyCatBella, I would not normally expect a very new editor to be filing a complaint like this.Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I might ask the complainant what prompted them to file the complaint? Unless I missed something, they had no prior involvement at that article? Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bob Drobbs

Yesterday, AmirahBreen put a warning on another user's talk page about the 1RR in place on that page[22], so they were well aware of the restrictions.

Today, they engaged in two reverts an hour apart[23] in addition to earlier reverts they had done.

I don't know if any action beyond the 72 hour block is appropriate or not, but knowingly violating the 1RR does seem more serious than an incidental mistake. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

This entire report is invalid, a violation of WP:ARBPIA which disallows new editors from editing in the WP namespace about the A/I conflict topic area. When a user with 34 freaking edits shows up to AE understanding discretionary sanctions, maybe stop and think hey should I be concerned with obvious sockpuppetry in a DS topic area? nableezy - 23:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GCB, look at the template at the top of this page. Yes, this is a noticeboard. This should be collapsed, the reporting user blocked, the end. nableezy - 00:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

While a 1RR violation is straightforward and needs to be enforced when it comes to light, I broadly agree that 30/500 restrictions should bar people from making AE requests. Beyond that I would argue that AE requests from accounts that seem likely to be throwaways should generally not be allowed (though this gets tricky, of course, for WP:BITE reasons.) One only has to look at the recent incident with Icewhiz to understand why - identifying all but the most obvious sockpuppets takes time, since they need to produce enough edits to make patterns obvious. As a result, "well you can bring any charges against the filer if you want" isn't helpful - obviously we can't usually do that if someone's entire edit history are a handful of trivial edits and a single AE report. The result of allowing reports like that, coupled with a refusal to automatically reverse the results of AE filings made by blocked sockpuppets when they are caught, is to allow socks of banned users to spam AE with reports against people they disagree with and want to remove from a controversial topic area (worse, we can't go after them for making frivolous reports or demonstrate a sustained effort to abuse AE, because, again, the use of socks makes it impossible to establish a pattern.) Maybe there's a more precision-targeted solution that still allows new users to submit valid reports, but we do need some way to deal with the problem. Note that I'm not accusing the filer, specifically, of being an inappropriate sockpuppet (though I think it's reasonable to at least assume that this isn't their first account), the point is that allowing AE enforcement to follow from reports like these inevitably means that all banned users will be able to file AE reports freely via sockpuppets, and often accomplish the things they want to accomplish, without there being any particular recourse or way to discourage them. --Aquillion (talk) 05:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (other editor)

Result concerning AmirahBreen

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

• I've blocked AmirahBreen for 72 hours for violation of the 1RR (it would have been 24 hours but thy have a previous 48-hour block for similar conduct). I'll leave this open because I'm tempted to add a page ban and/or longer-term partial block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't argue with the block but I'm inclined to topic ban AshiK Jonathan. It's just not acceptable that new editors can pop up to take out an opponent in this area. Their account was created on 15 November 2021 and has a total of 34 edits, none of which are to the target article or its talk. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Without comment on the merits, I would simply note that AshiK Jonathan (the filing party) has been indef blocked as a puppet of User:יניב הורון via an SPI case [24]. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 Interfase

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

ZaniGiovanni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Interfase (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:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

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

1. 26, November 2021 Reverts added source about alternative origin of a dance with an edit description of "X information was removed, so Y should be removed as well". Says "no consensus", no consensus of what? Unduly reasoning.
2. 26, November 2021 User edit-wars, saying that: "it contradicts what reliable source say" without explaining why this source exactly can't be added as an alternative view, especially given the nature of the subject and it being spread through the whole Caucasus region. Again, asking to "get consensus", abusively using guidelines as some sort of a revert reasoning.
3. 26, November 2021 Reverting yet again while discussion was happening in the talk page, same "get consensus" reasoning and "I will report you" threats.
4. 26, November 2021 Breaching WP:3RR

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 27, February 2014 Indefinite topic ban from topics related to Armenia and Azerbaijan
2. 10, March 2014 Indefinite topic ban lifted with specific conditions

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I believe this user's topic ban should be reinstated. For starters, their talk page is full of warnings, notices and whatnot, like multiple edit-warring notices (diff) and 3RR warnings (diff). Yet the user has no problem with edit-warring and breaching 3RR without even giving a valid explanation for most of the time. The user has been previously banned for edit-warring (see block log), and they have been topic banned from AA area, including for edit-warring (see previous enforcement case). Their topic ban has been lifted since, but the user doesn't seem to have changed much at all. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, consensus of what? You were removing sourced content without giving proper explanation for your reverts. And you're still failing to stay on topic. This report is about you clearly breaching WP:EW and WP:3RR, which you've been notified (and blocked for) multiple times in your talk page. Thank you for showing my only two reverts at the time [25], [26] where I asked you to at least provide a valid reason for your reverts. And I wasn't even the one who added the source, see actual diff of the addition.

It wasn't until I actually asked you to justify your unduly reverts, but the damage was already done. And it didn't even stop you from breaching WP:3RR, about which you've been clearly aware from your past edit-warrings. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the battleground mentality that got you tbanned for in the first place. Why do you keep saying "POV pushing" when I only made 2 reverts and was simply asking for a valid revert explanation? And you still didn't give a valid explanation even after I specifically asked you in the talk page. Volkova isn't RS, I already explained this to you multiple times in the talk page. You tried to add her already but as evident by the publication, Global Vision Publishing House, the publisher has no research or academic goals, its only goal is to serve clients. It's not reliable and is self-publishing.

On the other hand, the source that you removed and edit-warred over is published by Viltis (magazine), which to me seemed like a 3rd party RS publication. And please, try to assume good faith which you also had difficulties of doing in Talk:Uzundara#Lead_edit discussion. This report is about your WP:EW and WP:3RR breaches, I'm not here to discuss content issues with you. I already discussed it with you extensively in the talk page and also tried my best to explain guidelines to you, which you were citing so irresponsibly like casting aspersions of "WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT" (diff) without actually understanding what it means. I had to make a separate comment and explain guidelines, just for you to stop your battleground mentality and unfounded accusations, which you have been tbanned for in the past.

To be honest I did not pay attention that I did 4th revert in the article. – this is exactly the reason you shouldn't be editing in contentious areas like AA. You've already been banned for edit-warring, you've been tbanned, you've been warned multiple times for edit-warring and 3RR, your page is full of notices and whatnot, and your only excuse now is "I didn't notice it"?

Robert McClenon I don't mind moderation, but I won't drop this complaint. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell I think this report should proceed because it in regard to their clear breach of WP:EW and WP:3RR. While I don't mind another discussion in DRN, please see the extensive discussion in Talk:Uzundara#Azerbaijani_origin_of_the_dance_noted_by_Volkova, where they tried to use non RS published source as their desired claims and much more. The user refuses to listen despite multiple users explaining to them the problem with their source, and that no WP:RS is saying anything exactly about "Azerbaijani origin". Moreover, they attempted to synthesize sources to achieve their desired outcome multiple times in that discussion. And I actually commented and replied in the DRN extensively, please see my comments.

The user also casted a number of WP:ASPERSIONS in that talk discussion, citing guidelines and unduly accusing others of misconduct without understanding the meaning of said guidelines. They have shown the same behavior in the past, as evident by the previous AE report. And they have been edit-warring in the past and were full aware of their actions as evident by their numerous talk page warnings, so "I just didn't notice" is no way near a convincing justification in my opinion. At this point, the user should've already learned and been a lot more careful about the relevant guidelines which they had past difficulties of adhering to, should they not? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell with all due respect, did you read my linked comments? I already said I was going to report Interfase way before any DRN conversations, exactly when they started to edit-war. See the comment (diff) that I also linked above. Quote:

"explain your unduly revert reason, and what do you mean by "it contradicts the more reliable sources on Azerbaijani origin"? What "more reliable" source mentions Azerbaijani "origin"? I hope you don't mean the Baku published one or WP:SPS "Global Vision" publication, because if that was the reason for your revert being, it is an unduly revert and you'll be reported. Kindly self revert yourself, as there was no origin claim. On contrary, it says the dance may be brought from Ottoman Empire by Armenians, that isn't a heavy claim. The source for it is perfectly fine, please explain the problem with the source also just like I did."

Sure enough, the user then replies with what I had thought of already, saying (again) that a non-RS published source is fine apparently. This was the source we were talking about, which is not RS (see my comment above for more thorough explanation) and which they were trying to add in a separate edit. Sure enough, after this unconvincing edit-war "explanation", I was already decided that a report was needed. I only had time to report yesterday during weekend, because of my IRL responsibilities. Hope this clears the air regarding "timings".

And I really don't understand the suggestion to get me banned from the article. Most reverts I made in 24hrs were no more than 2, I always communicate, my contributions' history is a strong example of that. I rarely if ever engage in edit-wars or breach Wikipedia guidelines, especially the more I started to understand them and grow as an editor. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[27]

Discussion concerning Interfase

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 Interfase

Here user ZaniGiovanni threats me that if I am going to add another source that was biased for him it will be disruptive, and he'll have no other choice but to report me. But in case of another biased source he returned it back several times breaching WP:CONS. As per this rule if he didn't agree with the further edit (in this case it was revert) he should seek a compromise and only after that implement an edit. But user ZaniGiovanni tried to return this exceptional information based on unreliable source and violating WP:WEIGHT to the article by force. This text was reverted with the comments and there were the arguments on the talk page. Actually these edits[28][29] of ZaniGiovanni is clear POV-pushing attemt. It seems that user ZaniGiovanni thinks that the rules of the Wikipedia does not for him. He can threat other user and tell him not to add disputed source to the article, but adds another disputed source himself. --Interfase (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I gave proper explanation on a talk page regarding the revert. As per Wikipedia:Consensus, when an edit is made, other editors may either accept it, change it, or revert it. In this case it was reverted, and user ZaniGiovanni should seek a compromise as per WP:CONS instead of continuously POV-pushing. To be honest I did not pay attention that I did 4th revert in the article. I promise that next time I will be more attentive and in case of any POV-pushing will not do 4th revert and warn the user, who broke the WP:EW and WP:CONS, and report him if he continues POV-pushing and WP:CONS breaching. --Interfase (talk) 03:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

A request for moderated dispute resolution has been made at DRN by User:Interfase. This conduct complaint appears to have been filed by User:ZaniGiovanni a few hours after the DRN filing, and ZG was aware of the DRN filing. I can try to mediate the content dispute if the editors will drop the conduct complaints, or I can fail the content dispute because there is also this conduct dispute. A case is not handled at DRN if there is a dispute in any other forum. I will fail the DRN case unless the parties agree to dismiss this conduct issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Robert. The request for moderate dispute resolution was send by me before this complaint and all involved users were informed about this request at the article's talk page[30]. Since I raised a request I did not make any edits at the article, did not add disputed source back. I tried reach a consensus on a talk page, but no any results. For that reason I did not see other way to resolve the issue. I am ready to drop the conduct complaints if the content dispute will start to mediate. Regards, --Interfase (talk) 05:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Interfase

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

• I would suggest allowing dispute resolution to proceed at DRN. If that fails because of the conduct of one or both parties, the matter can be referred back here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Very well. There is a 3RR violation so, if we're going down the enforcement route, a block for Interfase is inevitable. I'm inclined to make it 72 hours or a week given the previous sanctions in the topic area (looking at the log, I see I imposed one of them seven years ago), including a couple of blocks for edit warring, along with a longer page ban or perhaps a 1RR restriction. But I'm not impressed with ZaniGiovanni. Although they haven't gone over the 3RR, they have been involved in an edit war and continued to revert while discussion was ongoing (credit where it's just due, Interfase actually started the talk page discussion, complying with the restriction I imposed seven years ago). They then filed an enforcement request after Interfase requested dispute resolution. To me, that's not a good-faith effort to resolve a content dispute. I'm inclined to ban ZaniGiovanni from the article Uzundara for as long as Interfase is blocked with a warning that stronger sanctions will soon follow if this conduct becomes a pattern. I'll leave this open for a while to see if any other admins have an opinion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]