Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case
Requests for arbitration
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| CASENAME | 29 June 2020 | 0/0/0 |
| 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.
Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. This page is for statements, not discussion.
|
CASENAME
Initiated by Brian K Horton (talk) at 13:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Brian K Horton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- Cease and desist to Newslinger
- Explanation of complaint to all Administrative users via their noticeboard
- Explanation of complaint re. Newslinger & Deb to whomever it concerned (that person turning out to be Yamla)
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 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.
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.
CASENAME: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
CASENAME: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)