This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JoJo Anthrax (talk | contribs) at 14:24, 27 June 2022 (→Statement by Jojo Anthrax: uh...hello?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ARC

Requests for arbitration

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Issues with the Operation of ANI

Initiated by Carter00000 (talk) at 17:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Carter00000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Citobun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cullen328 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Drmies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Ad Orientem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Acroterion (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Praxidicae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Girth Summit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Muboshgu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Citobun
• Cullen328
• Drmies
• Ad Orientem
• Acroterion
• Praxidicae
• Girth Summit
• Muboshgu

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bad Faith Reverts by User:Citobun
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Negligent Adjudication by Administrator (User:Cullen328)
• User talk:Citobun#Reverts of Article Edits

Statement by Carter00000

I recently edited three pages to improve prose and content , but was reverted by Citobun, alleging that the edits had poor prose and was not reflective of the subject . As the prose in the original articles were barely comprehensible, the reverts were clearly illogical, so could not be considered a content dispute. I believe the reverts were made in bad faith, given the egregiousness of Citobun's rationale. I posted a warning on Citobun's talk page and requested clarification on the edits, which I have re-instated . No responses have been received.

I made a notice at ANI to request further comment on the issue. 20 minutes later, Cullen328 responded. Without attempting to find out more information or initiate a discussion, Cullen328 opined that I had accused Citobun without reasonable evidence and breached the assumption of good faith of editors. He precluded the usage of ANI, stating that the dispute was content related. Girth Summit stated support for my issues.

As the nature of Citobun's reverts should be obvious to a reasonable person, I felt that Cullen328's response was issued in error. I filed a second notice at ANI to address this, feeling that an error of this magnitude was unacceptable for an Administrator, taking into account the gravity of their words on ANI. I replied to Cullen328 on the original notice, highlighting the unclear prose in one article.

11 minutes later, Praxidicae responds, implying that he had not read my notice, but felt the notice was baseless. He also criticized the notice length, half of which were in fact examples. Cullen328 responds that he was stating how content dispute worked, but failed to mention the other points made, and that the initial notice was not content dispute related. Praxidicae further responds, suggesting a block for the notice.

Less than two hours after the posting of my second notice, both notices were closed by Drmies & Ad Orientem, even through the notices were not directly linked, stating both notices were groundless, and no reverts should have been made. A warning was issued by Acroterion for personal attacks and misunderstanding the role of ANI. I was not given a chance to make any further replies.

I opened this RFAR to address the issues present in ANI. This should have been a simple matter, with the illogical reversions being noted. Instead, almost no mention of this was made throughout the ANI processes, with the focus being on the purpose of ANI, the length of my notices, and the fact that I was new to Misplaced Pages. Multiple participants also stated that they did not read my notice before commenting. I further note the speed of the processes, which seemed abnormally fast.

I request that the Committee review the case, with a focus on whether there are any systematic issues present in the ANI process. Given the obvious nature of the reverts, and subsequent actions of the users involved, it would seem that certain unreasonable actions may be conducted casually and frequently.

• @Softlavender Your points are noted and a discussion has been opened on the talk page.
• @GoodDay, @Softlavender Please cease your unfounded accusations. If I was ban-evading, I don't think I would be voluntarily drawing this much attention to myself.

• @Softlavender See WP:WITCHHUNT & WP:HOUNDING.Not that hard to read WP guides.

• @arbiters & administrators. Please initiate investigation of my activities if deemed necessary.

Statement by Citobun

Sorry, I haven't logged in recently and was not aware this was going on. I haven't interacted with this user before this incident (it seems to be a new account, but an experienced editor). I reverted three of their edits. I'll expand on the rationale for each below:

• Airport Authority Hong Kong – it seems to add wishy-washy language and remove direct statements (e.g. that the AAHK lied). But the Hong Kong Ombudsman explicitly admonished the Airport Authority for "lying" to the public, which is reflected in the cited source. To be more direct, I feel that the edits are performing a kind of damage control for Hong Kong government agencies.

• Lee government – similar rationale as above. Replaces direct language with unclear euphemisms. The national security law was "imposed" on Hong Kong by Beijing. Only so-called "patriots" are now allowed to be legislators in Hong Kong. The user stated that their edits make the article more "objective". It is not POV to state the facts as they are. The new Chinese government policy is literally called "patriots governing Hong Kong".

• Marine Department – While the original revision wasn't well written (many Hong Kong articles suffer from poor grammar) I felt that the edit still seemed to be deleting valid content while improving the image of the government department.

I note that this user has been doing the same kind of editing on other HK government agencies since then. Citobun (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Cullen328

It seems clear at this point that Carter00000 does not understand how Misplaced Pages works. This filing is unfounded. Cullen328 (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Clearly, I am involved in this kerfuffle and cannot take administrative action myself. But this has now escalated to overt disruption of the encyclopedia, and I encourage any uninvolved administrative to put a prompt stop to this editor's ongoing WP:IDHT behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 05:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies

Ima go with "what the fuck". After all, it's a Saturday and I'm not wearing a suit. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Ad Orientem

The OP appears to be suffering from a bad case of WP:IDHT. After being admonished by multiple highly experienced editors that they were wasting the community's time and that their ANI filing was meritless, they have chosen to double down here. Nothing new has been presented or changed such as to cause me to reconsider my earlier judgement. I would advise the OP to withdraw this case and drop the WP:STICK before someone uninvolved decides the community needs a break from their drama. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I find myself in agreement with concerns raised by several of my colleagues that this is an experienced editor who has been around much longer than their current account. Their knowledge of WP:PAG and editing history is a flashing red light. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@ Carter00000 I am not sure if this has been asked by anyone else, but would you please identify any previous accounts you have edited under? -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Acroterion

Carter00000 has made no edits to article talk space. None. Their first edit to user talk was to Citobun's talkpage, and after that single edit, they went to ANI 14 hours later to complain about Citobun claiming bad faith and "egregious"action by Citobun,. Their response to a completely routine comment by Cullen328 was to post a wall of text, and a muddled complaint that Cullen was supposed to "adjudicate." The thread was closed by Drmies with the obvious observation that they came to ANI before finding the talkpage.

They then created a section titled "Negligent Adjudication by Administrator (User:Cullen328)", which to me pretty much summarized Carter00000's misapprehensions on the roles of administrators and ANI. I told them so, and warned them that the whole thread amounted to a personal attack against Cullen, apparently because Cullen didn't do Carter00000's bidding.

Now we have an arbitration request, and Carter00000 still hasn't found an article talkpage. For somebody who seems to approach Misplaced Pages as a quasi-judicial process, they have an oddly casual notion of process. I don't think blocking is needed at this time, but they need to be conclusively disabused of the notion that they can complain to the perceived manager and have their way. Collaboration and patience are essential. Acroterion (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Praxidicae

I'm confused as to why I'm included as a party here and doubly confused as to why this is here in the first place or what the OPs request is even about. Also I am not a he, I am a woman. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Girth Summit

I agreed that the reasons for Citobun's reverts were unclear to me, and noted that I'd like to hear more about those reasons. I'd hoped that Citobun would simply give a bit more of a rationale for their reverts, and that reasonable discussion about the content could be moved over to the articles' talk pages. However, I think that the OP's rush to conclude that Citobun was acting in bad faith was inappropriate, and way over the top - as such, I don't think that there was anything particularly wrong with Cullen328's response, and the OP's rush to create a second ANI case, complaining about Cullen328's comments, was ridiculous. I told them on my talk that I thought they ought to withdraw it, but they didn't respond to that. Now we have an Arbcom case request - all over three reverts, and the unwillingness of the community to do, well, whatever it was the OP wanted to come out of the original ANI case (I'm not actually sure what the outcome they were looking for originally was). The impression I am getting is of someone who responds to not getting what they want by causing as much fuss as possible, as quickly as possible, rather than spending time getting used to the culture of the project and learning the ropes; we all know that ANI has issues, but this case is not the ideal lens through which to examine them. I think that this request should be declined as premature, and the OP be directed towards WP:DR or similar. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Muboshgu

Nothing to add to what I said previously and others have said here. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment by GoodDay

Recommend this request be rejected, as premature. PS - Carter's only been on Misplaced Pages on a steady basis for five days (before that, his activeness has been sparse) & I'm astonished at how he'd know about ANI, Arbcom, etc etc. Hoping this isn't an evade situation. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe my first impression, was accurate. Carter is most likely a ban evading editor. GoodDay (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Statement by AndyTheGrump

To continue from what GoodDay writes above, it should also be noted that Citobun, who was named in the initial ANI thread, only edits intermittently, hasn't edited since the disputed reverts, and accordingly may not even be aware that there was any significant dispute over anything at all. This filing is accordingly grossly premature, to say the least. Carter00000 would be well advised to learn how Misplaced Pages works, starting with a careful reading of Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. Which, it should be noted, does not encourage resorting to ArbCom before even editing the relevant article talk page... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Trainsandotherthings

I urge the committee to resolve this case by a motion indefinitely blocking Carter00000 for trolling and acute WP:IDHT. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Deepfriedokra

• FWIW, this looks like a content dispute in the best possible light. Don't know if Trainsandotherthings's proposal of resolving by motion to indef filer for IDNHT/trolling/disruption is something y'all'd be interested in, but it looks like a good idea. Maybe just an admonishment? Best. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
• RE: "All of us have at some point gotten reverted and decided the best course of action is to just drop the matter." Indeed. I generally follow WP:1RR. Nothing on this encyclopedia is worth fighting over. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
• Feeling as many of y'all do, I guess once this is finally laid to rest, you should file at WP:ANI. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  Technical question-- with seven "declines" do we now have "blast off." --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Softlavender

Carter00000, please don't make mass changes in one edit. Make small edits one at a time, and carefully explain in each edit summary exactly what you have done and why.

Also, if you've only been here a few months and have made less than 50 edits, it's best to listen to multiple administrators who have been here more than a decade each and made approximately 100,000 edits each. You're not going to get anywhere by trying to defy them or get them in trouble or go around them. This isn't a good way to start out on Misplaced Pages. This best advice I can give you is always go immediately to the talkpage of the article in question to resolve any dispute, and avoid making numerous or large changes in a single edit. Softlavender (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• To the Committee: Despite multiple efforts to teach this editor to discuss on articletalk, they are now instead edit-warring on one of the affected articles, Marine Department (Hong Kong). The editor is looking more and more like a returning troll or LTA. With less than 60 edits, how did they know the acronym "RFAR"? Softlavender (talk) 04:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• Citobun's statement just now (after being offline and unaware of these disputes) raises some new and disturbing concerns . -- Softlavender (talk) 01:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Looking through Carter00000's edits (after his initial apparently diversionary edits), it does indeed appear that he is a CCP apologist who couches his POV edits as merely improving wording or grammar. It also appears he is a very experienced editor; his 15th edit summary cites WP:MINORASPECT, and he also cites that 5 more times in edits to other articles, sometimes as an excuse to censor them. I believe all of his edits need to be scrutinized for POV and censorship. Softlavender (talk) 01:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen

Cullen328 of all people. Bishonen | tålk 10:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC).

Statement by Dennis Brown

This feels like we are being punked by an LTA. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

A CU should feel free to poke around, I would think... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Jojo Anthrax

I am an uninvolved editor. Reviewing the OP's edits and actions, there is clear evidence of POV-pushing, assuming bad faith (the attacks on Cullen328 are particularly egregious), strong WP:IDHT, and a knowledge of WP esoterica that is wholly inconsistent with a new/inexperienced editor. There seems no reason to open a case here. To prevent further disruption I support the suggestions above that the OP be blocked, with or without a CU analysis. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Based upon the ongoing disruptive harassment from the OP here, here, here, here, here, and here, I can not understand why an arb hasn't already issued an indef block upon the OP. What precisely am I missing? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Statement by WaltCip

Actually, I think Arbcom should accept this, resolve by motion, and indef block the filer for WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE among other reasons.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

As this user is now harassing editors on their talkpages for making claims of WP:IDHT, I now am doubly convinced that an indef block is necessary.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Issues with the Operation of ANI: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Following an email request, Carter00000 is granted 100 additional words for any purpose and an additional 400 words (for a total of 1000) for the sole purpose of responding to direct questions from arbitrators only in the event that arbitrators ask them. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
• Deepfriedokra, we are at T-4 hours (once 48 hours has elapsed since the opening of the case request). Dreamy Jazz 13:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Issues with the Operation of ANI: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/7/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Decline as premature and outside of ArbCom's scope. @Carter00000: Interpreting your actions generously, I think you've misunderstood how dispute resolution on Misplaced Pages works – see WP:DR. Broadly, there are content disputes and conduct disputes. Sometimes content disputes can get heated or problematic enough that they become conduct disputes, but the three reverts you point to don't get even close to that level. So, with that understood, ANI exists to consider serious conduct issues requiring immediate action, and three reverts simply doesn't cut it. As a content matter, the correct process would have been to discuss the reverts on the talk page and identify what the specific problems were (see also WP:BRD). (If the other party had in that circumstance simply continued mass-reverting edits without engaging with your requests to discuss, that might have risen to a conduct dispute.) That's what the administrators who responded and closed your ANI thread were conveying to you. Instead of listening, you filed a subsequent (and unwarranted) ANI thread about the administrator who responded, and then decided to escalate the matter to ArbCom – a process that even cursory inspection should tell you is not to be lightly approached. I hope it's clear that that was not a wise decision, and has gone on to seriously waste a number of others' time. In one way you were somewhat lucky to have come to ArbCom; if you had gone to ANI for a third time, I think you would've been blocked (see WP:BOOMERANG). That won't be happening here; I appreciate that you were simply trying to help and perhaps did not expect the processes to involve this much hassle to others. In the future, I really do urge you to seriously consider the advice of others – there are folks here who have spent 1000x as much time on this site as you have and have a fairly good sense of how things work. I hope you'll stick around and become one of those editors (if that's what you want), but it takes some patience and willingness to listen (see WP:IDHT). All of us have at some point gotten reverted and decided the best course of action is to just drop the matter. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
• Decline as premature. --Izno (talk) 05:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
• Decline as premature. Carter00000, play the ball and not the man. Cabayi (talk) 06:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
• Decline as premature. Primefac (talk) 09:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  For those clamouring to have the filer blocked for their behaviour - if we are declining the case because the other steps of dispute resolution have not yet been attempted, why would we skip the other steps of dispute resolution when considering a block of the filer? Primefac (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Decline Beeblebrox (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
• Decline Donald Albury 15:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
• Decline per my colleagues. Worm(talk) 12:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)