Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bishzilla (talk | contribs) at 20:32, 30 June 2020 (→‎Gaslighting and DAILYMAIL: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter: Superclerk Bishzilla updating count. You welcome!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.

Shortcut

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Gaslighting and DAILYMAIL   29 June 2020 0/10/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 13 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Gaslighting and DAILYMAIL

Initiated by Brian K Horton (talk) at 13:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1][2][3][4]


Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I have decided not to attempt any further lesser dispute resolution for my complaint, since I believe it suffices to show that if four Administrative users just don't see it (which is not the same as acknowledging but rejecting the complaint), there is considerable risk of me getting blocked before I can find at least one who does accept I was gaslighted, why I was gaslighted, and does something to prevent a future occurence. Or alternatively, tells me this is not gaslighting (rather than me implying this is their view from their silence).

Statement by Brian K Horton

Administrator Newslinger was attempting to gaslight me here: [5] [6] [7]. Specifically, he was making illogical statements about my words/actions and then stood by them after they were shown to be false (I was making a policy based case, and I was, at least in part, raising new issues). He made me question my sanity and generally agitated me, to make me appear too unreasonable or simply too stupid to be allowed to contribute to Wikipedia. A gaslighter relies on people who don't take the time to understand what is happening, to view the gaslighter's position as the reasonable and logical one, and therefore unwittingly assist them. 

When his initial attempts failed and I asked him to stop, he reacted with a proposal to eject me permanently, casting my views as "dubious" and "frivelous". Since it is probably never the case that someone acting calmly and reasonably would ever get permanently excluded as their first and only interaction with the Administration, I think he was counting on me properly losing it to achieve his aims, and he nearly succeeded.

I acknowledge that he advised me to raise my concerns directly with the (now eight) people who have summarized the consensus of DAILYMAIL, but it stands to reason that the most logical place to have that discussion, is not in eight different talk pages, it is on the very noticeboard he was attempting to prevent me using. Again, this advice only appears unreasonable to someone who has properly understood the full context.

I'm obviously not going to deny I have made mistakes, I have perhaps underestimated Wikipedia editor's willingness to stand behind illogical positions, for example. For it cannot be denied that it is illogical to use unreliable methods to determine what is and is not a reliable source (garbage in, garbage out). Wikipedia editors can collectively choose to do this if they wish, but I don't think this is such an unreasonable position that I should have been treated this way. I do therefore wonder if the only reason DAILYMAIL stands as the consensus, is because those who seem to genuinely believe it was a flawless debate with sound conclusions, are prepared to resort to such means to defend this position. 

I do not believe this is a case of one bad apple taking advantage of a weakness in the system to achieve their apparent goals. I believe that three other Administrative users, Deb, Yamla and Boing! said Zebedee all played their own part in ensuring my complaint of gaslighting was not given proper consideration (diffs given in prior attempts at resolution), thereby assisting Newslinger in his aims. 

If there is a culture on Wikipedia that rewards the use of gaslighting as a means of preventing unpopular but entirely valid points being raised, especially to suppress original points that have never been raised before, that is a problem for Wikipedia. Because the only realistic argument that can be made that Wikipedia's major editorial decisions are potentially unsound, is because the ability to raise valid objections is theoretically open to everyone.

I am accusing Newslinger of gaslighting, I am accusing Deb of failing to take my accusation of their gaslighting seriously (and in the process, perhaps even doing it themselves given the increasingly implausible defences of their actions), and I am accusing Yamla and Boing! of not taking my complaint about Deb's block, and therefore by extension Newslinger's gaslighting, into account when considering my appeal. Ergo, it appears to me there is a culture of either not recognising the purpose of gaslighting (making every action done by a gaslighter appear reasonable, and every action by their victim appear unreasonable), or not taking it seriously enough. Deb is illustrating the problem right here, given their statement woefully lacks any real context, but, quite deliberately I imagine, sounds reasonable to someone who is coming to this complaint with no knowledge of what happened. It is important to know, for example, why Deb did not reply to this post of mine before blocking me for making a personal attack after their warning. Is it the case that they still don't accept that you can accuse someone of gaslighting if you do it in the right venue and give evidence? Or did they block me because I didn't go as far as actually spoon feeding them links to posts by Newslinger I was talking about? Did they choose not to reply because both of these explanations would highlight that they had absolutely no interest in finding out whether the accusation was true or not. Is there actually any explanation for Deb's behaviour that shows they had any concern at all for my right not to be gaslighted on Wikipedia? This is their chance to explain everything, with full benefit of hindsight, and yet they choose to make a statement that omits crucial details and virtually all context. Why? Brian K Horton (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newslinger

In the three diffs referenced in Brian K Horton's statement (Special:Diff/963720127, Special:Diff/963725405, and Special:Diff/963734320), I responded to Brian K Horton's 1,004-word comment on the reliable sources noticeboard. Brian K Horton's comment does indeed fail to advance any policy- or guideline-based argument in favor of overturning the three highly-attended RfCs and more than 42 additional discussions that resulted in the Wikipedia community's deprecation of the Daily Mail. The only policy or guideline referenced in the comment was "NOTAFURM", which likely refers to WP:NOTFORUM, a policy that Brian K Horton violated by posting a 1,004-word comment that primarily accuses the Wikipedia community of "bias".

Brian K Horton incorrectly assumed that I did not read their 1,004-word comment in their reply to my first response. I did read their comment, which is how I determined that it lacked a basis in policy and was in violation of WP:NOTFORUM. Brian K Horton claimed in the comment that "a consensus of Wikipedia editors is not valid, if 'reasonable concerns' in summarising their views, were not addressed". There are two problems with this claim:

  1. The claim is not based on Wikipedia's policy on consensus, which states that "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable)". When assessing consensus in an RfC, all editor input is taken into account, but not all minority opinions need to be addressed in the closing statement. Further, a counterargument made in a separate discussion after an RfC is closed does not automatically invalidate the RfC. WP:CCC states, "Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive." The third Daily Mail RfC was closed just two days before this discussion took place, which constitutes "recently established consensus".
  2. In the context of Brian K Horton's comment, the claim presupposes that Brian K Horton's concerns are reasonable. However, the bulk of the 1,004-word comment is an allegation of "bias", rather than any policy- or guideline-based argument. As the comment lacks a basis in policy, it is not a "reasonable concern".

I did not "gaslight" Brian K Horton. Delivering arguments based on policies and guidelines is an essential part of consensus-building on Wikipedia, and does not constitute "gaslighting".

Accusing other editors of "gaslighting" without adequate evidence is a form of personal attack (casting aspersions). I endorse Deb's one-week block of Brian K Horton, and Yamla's and Boing! said Zebedee's unblock declines. — Newslinger talk 14:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Deb

Obviously this is the first time I have seen this particular edit. I don't watch this user's Talk page. As far as the blocking goes, I feel it was fully justified in view of the personal attacks, which the user repeated immediately after being asked to desist. Deb (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee

My only involvement in this is in decling an unblock request, here, for the reasons you can see at that link. The appellant started his next unblock request by saying he accepted those reasons. It's standard practice for a blocked user to have to get themselves unblocked by addressing the reasons for their block, before they can pursue any other grievance. So I don't really know what I'm being accused of here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Yamla

Like Boing!, my only involvement was to decline an unblock request. It's not clear to me what I'm being accused of. I have not participated in the discussion around DAILYMAIL as far as I am aware. I do not believe that declining an unblock request and pointing them to WP:GAB equates to gaslighting and suppression. Indeed, it's not clear to me what the claim of gaslighting is all about here. Is that levelled only against Newslinger, against all involved parties, or against all of Wikipedia generally? In what way is this not just a case of WP:IDHT? --Yamla (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq

I'm always puzzled when a newbie waltzes in and, in their first 10 edits, demands that we run this site the way they want us to. I can't imagine having the gall to try to do that on some other website. It's particularly irksome when they think "gaslight" means "someone made me think I was wrong about something". I cannot imagine this person being a productive user here, and Deb's use of a 1 week block instead of an indef block, while kind and a decent thing to try, didn't work out. They are not going to be able to edit collaboratively if disagreement is constantly equated with gaslighting. As soon as this case is declined, I plan to block indef unless there is a giant change of heart. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

The three supposed "gaslighting" posts are civil explanations of policy, process, and past discussions. They constitute a patient and polite attempt to explain to a purportedly new user with under 50 edits why they are unlikely to get what they want, especially if they go about it in that specific way. The posts are clearly not gaslighting. The OP's complaint, on the other hand, could reasonably be construed as just that. Guy (help!) 14:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serial# Non-party

But, Bradv, other arbs, I stand by my comment here: an editor of a week's tenure, 50 edits and a near-perfectly formatted arbitration request? Pull the other one, it's got bells on. ——Serial # 14:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Praxidicae}

Are boomerangs are thing at arbcom? If so I'd suggest that as the only course of action and close the curtains on this shit show. Also perhaps the OP should read the definition of gaslighting. Praxidicae (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moneytrees

I've blocked Brian K Horton as not here outside of my clerk abilities; nothing constructive is going to come of this case request, nor Horton's future editing. Moneytrees🌴Talk🌲Help out at CCI! 15:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Naypta

JzG linked the complainant here to WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. - which, unusually for an Arbcom case, almost certainly applies here. This is not a matter for Arbcom, and in my view, the block imposed was entirely reasonable. The diffs in the original report ironically show bad faith being assumed repeatedly on the part of the complainant - for example, here directed at Newslinger, and here also at RSN talking about another user (did submit a fraudulent case, and probably knowingly; Quite the reverse, what they did do actually rewarded those who may only have been acting not only out of subconscious bias, but out of malice) - and that's not even to mention the civility violations involved in repeatedly accusing users who disagree of gaslighting; both of those together are clearly sufficient to merit a block.

The complainant has read plenty of Wikipedia policy, that much is clear; it is equally clear that they are perfectly intelligent, from the formulations that they use. I would recommend to them that they consider the optics of their actions, along with suggesting that collaborative editing requires them to understand when people disagree and be able to respond appropriately to it, without accusing people who disagree with them of being bad faith editors, and much less by trying to drag people through an arbitration process over a relatively insignificant single dispute. It's looking like arb opinions are going to end up snowing; rightly so, in my opinion. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 15:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dave

Only thing I'd support in this case is a boomerang block, Daily Mail isn't going to be used so accept that and get over it. –Davey2010Talk 15:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by North8000

While I would quibble with the "you are not allowed to argue against a previous RFC finding" type statement, this looks mostly like a brand new (less than 2 week) immediately active editor making the newbie blunders from not having yet figured out that Wikipedia is not like the rest of the internet. It's not necessary that they completely go down in flames such as the admin comment above about planning to indef a 10 day old editor. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Robert McClenon

The kangaroo wasn't there, so the boomerang came back. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.


Gaslighting and DAILYMAIL: Clerk notes

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

Gaslighting and DAILYMAIL: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/10/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Decline – I am not convinced that the complainant is here in good faith. Even if they were here in good faith, disputes over the content of the Daily Mail article, or its use as a reliable source, are not matters for the Arbitration Committee to resolve. Furthermore, I have not seen any evidence of "gaslighting", not any arguments that the behaviour identified as such violates basic site policies. – bradv🍁 14:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline—the root of this is a content issue we can't deal with, and I don't see evidence of gaslighting or personal attacks. I would advise User:Brian K Horton if they're interested in continuing on Wikipedia productively that they learn the point of the Arbitration Committee and take feedback from users into account. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, and recommend Brian K Horton withdraw this case. –xenotalk 14:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Moneytrees: Could you make it clearer in your block notice that this was done as an individual administrator action? (Noting your recusal.) –xenotalk 15:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline Ever seen Gaslight? If you had, you would understand that that's not what's going on here. It's absolutely true that consensus can change, but after three RFCs I don't think this consensus is likely to flip anytime soon, and in any event, it's not an issue we can address here. These admins have done nothing wrong or in violation of ADMINCOND. If Brian K Horton doesn't like being told he's mistaken or wrong, maybe this editing environment isn't for him. You win some and you lose some. If you can't take the losses, you won't like it here very much. Katietalk 14:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline I'm not seeing a behavioral problem here for us to address, and the issue of whether the RfCs were properly closed is not for us to determine. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. ArbCom's role is to end long-running behavioral issues, or to address serious administrative misconduct. This is neither of those things. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. The term "gaslighting" has become overused in Wikipedia disputes, and this is by no means an instance of it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. – Joe (talk) 06:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline WormTT(talk) 17:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=965350808"