User talk:Brian K Horton

Welcome!

Hi Brian K Horton! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! buidhe 05:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Incidents noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Brian K Horton. — Newslinger talk 16:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Checking on your contributions and those of others, I see a number of comments you've made that conflict with our policy of not allowing personal attacks. It's not acceptable to accuse people of making "claims ... almost intentionally vague and or faintly ridiculous precisely to avoid legal action" or of "submit(ting) a fraudulent case, and probably knowingly" or of "acting not only out of subconscious bias, but out of malice". And this is just in the five days you've been on the project. I have to warn you that any further occurrence will result in you being blocked. Deb (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

And I go back to ANI and find that you've already made further personal attacks. I've given you a one-week block. At the end of that, if you can make useful contributions without insulting others, you'll be allowed back. Deb (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Deb (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't even seen your message before you blocked me, but whatever, I'm sure someone will find some way of painting me as the crazy person for that too. Brian K Horton (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Brian K Horton, I suppose you won't come back doing the same edits? {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 18:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• "I hadn't even seen your message before you blocked me." But you had seen my message at ANI warning you to withdraw the accusation of gaslighting, and you went straight ahead and repeated it. Deb (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh right. But hang on, that's not quite right, is it? I mean, someone might read "you went straight ahead and repeated it" and believe it is true, whereas an independent observer might interpret the purpose and intent of my reply quite differently, perhaps even as an attempt to avoid being blocked for accusing people of gaslighting. If they don't simply find the claim, "you said it again", false on the face of it. Can't say anymore though, can I, can't put this behaviour into words, or say how I feel about this latest comment, because, well, that would apparently be a third offence, right? Only now do I see you actually want to accuse me of harassment, an accusation I would vehemently deny on the simple facts, if I thought anyone would care. Funny that, what you're allowed to say, and I'm not. Brian K Horton (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I see no personal attack there. Debs stop misconstruing things and taking things out of context as you've done in the links above, we've had this discussion before need I remind you. He was making a point which he is entitled to make. There is no personal attack whatsoever in any of the links above. Debs we've also had a discussion about you inserting thoughts and words onto other users, need I remind you again about our discussions. Brian best thing to do is wait it out a week, no one is going to unblock you, sadly. Games of the world (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Brian K Horton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Now I have looked, I can see these are only "personal attacks" if I cannot provide evidence to back them up, and it is highly relevant to the unfairness of this block, thet I wasn't even asked if I could. I can. And in future, I obviously will, because no way in hell am I staying silent if someone else tries to gaslight me. It's a terribly corrosive behaviour, something that will continue to be done by people with the power to do so, for as long as nobody else here calls it out when it happens. People are free to dispute my evidence, and if they don't see it, then sure, that's when it is appropriate to retract. But not before. You cannot lodge a complaint about gaslighting, without accusing someone of gaslighting, that is how the English language works. Brian K Horton (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I suggest rereading WP:GAB. You've been blocked for 1 week and I'm doing you a favour by simply declining your unblock request here, rather than extending it indefinitely. Yamla (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Brian K Horton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have read GAB. I understand I was blocked for making Wikipedia:No personal attacks, after a warning which gave some examples. The block was incorrect because I was not given the chance to read the warning against personal attacks, having not noticed it until after I made two further posts, which contained further personal attacks. The blocking Administrator seems to accept he made a mistake and acted in haste, but apparently did not lift the block because he believes I should not have disobeyed his direct command not to accuse another editor of #Gaslighting me. I did not initially believe I had disobeyed his directive, but this was erroneous as I got confused when replying to him about the fact I had made those two further posts, one to him, which I was recalling, which did not directly accuse another editor of gaslighting, and one to another editor, which did, that I had forgotten. I understand that these and other posts of mine were personal attacks (unacceptable) because I had not properly presented the evidence that would transform them into legitimate observations on user behaviour (acceptable). I accused editors of gaslighting me, but I failed to fully explain what they were doing, i.e., with "diff" examples, having wrongly assumed that others would be able to determine the sequence of events and offending behaviour from simple descriptions and edit logs. I understand now that it is my sole responsibility to ensure these incidents are handled correctly, that I should not expect and will not receive assistance from Administrative users in such matters, unless I comply with all applicable rules. I am now aware of the rules, so the risk of non-compliance is removed. If not unlocked, I intend to spend the rest of the week calmly reflecting on my behaviour, and further reading any Wikipedia rules I have not yet come across thus far. Sincerely, Brian K Horton (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your claim that "The blocking Administrator seems to accept he made a mistake and acted in haste" bears little similarity to what that comment actually says (and given the blocking admin is called "Deb", you might want to consider whether assuming they're a "he" is appropriate). And, I have to say, the rest of this appeal really does not properly address your beligerance - you just seem to be saying your fault was in not properly following the letter of policy. I suggest that spending the rest of the week "calmly reflecting on [your] behaviour" is a good idea - not so much focusing on the minutiae of the rules, but thinking about the best way to interact with other people in a civil and friendly manner. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Brian K Horton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I acknowledge my above appeal did not address my past belligerence, which I confess stems from a perceived lack of care in other users for my emotional well-being or fair treatment. And I stress, perception, no accusation of wrongdoing is intended or implied. I accept that I am wrong to have reacted emotionally to this perception. I accept and understand that my above appeal is overly reliant on both a literal interpretation of the rules and procedure, while also accepting I was wrong to have assumed what was in Deb's mind, beyond what was evident in their precise words. There is no acknowledgement of haste. There is no acknowledgment of error. There is only the concern I ignored their other directive that I did see, as well as the warning that I had not. For that, I apologise to Deb. It is harmful behaviour not to listen or acknowledge other people's feelings, as well as their literal words. I accept I must be more mindful of people's emotional wellbeing when communicating here, taking care not to engage in harmful behaviour, such as belligerance, misgendering, or gaslighting, to take just three examples. I acknowlede that I must accept my subordinate position with respect to Administrative users, who are of course trusted and apparently even vetted for their proven capability to avoid harmful behaviours in their efforts to moderate interactions in this online community. I acknowledge I must suppress my instinct to react to perceived injustice with vicious words. This is wrong. I accept that I must avoid all wrongful behaviour, regardless of whether or not I have been explicitly told it was a concern, and regardless of my inexperience with the cultural norms as well as the written rules of Wikipedia, which are unfamiliar to me. Which is a personal surprise, since my background is in the humanitarian sector, counselling victims of psychological abuse. I accept it is my responsibility to monitor my own behaviour first and foremost, while on Wikipedia. As such, I respectfully suggest that with these wise words of advice now taken fully on board, I am capable of treating people nicely and respectfully going forward. Respectfully, Brian K Horton (talk) 11:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This block expired without being reviewed, so the unblock request is no longer necessary. As there is currently no active block on this account, you are welcome but not obligated to remove this and/or the other two unblock requests from this page. Yamla (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• For the next reviewer (not me as I reviewed the previous one), I'd support an unblock based on this appeal. I'll just add to Brian K Horton that you don't need to adopt a subordinate position with respect to admins, just to community consensus. The only thing admins have the authority to do, ultimately, is uphold community consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Gaslighting

For the avoidance of doubt, gaslighting is a pattern of behaviour where one person tries to make another person believe they are at fault, when the evidence shows they are not, and there is no explanation for the counter-factual behaviour other than ill-intent, such as to cause an emotional reaction in situations where a logical reaction would be detrimental to the other person's objectives. By definition, to those who do not pay particular attention to the conversation, it can appear to be perfectly acceptable conduct on the part of the gaslighter, thereby achieving their goal of painting their opponent as not just being wrong, but irrational. A gaslighter for example, might claim to have read a long post, when they haven't, and it can be proven to be a lie by assessing the time they took and the errors they make in describing it, and it can be proven to be gaslighting if there is some objective to be achieved that requires them to have appeared to have read the post, but which if they had, would not be a logical objective. It is a pernicious form of mental abuse, that destroys online communities. Only high functioning sociopaths can do it really well, such as for example, being able to do it openly, while maintaining a respectable position in the very community they are toxifying. Often there is no higher purpose to it other than the gratification of the knowing mental abuse of those less powerful than you, but whose survival depends on you pleasing them, hence IRL it is often a component of domestic abuse.

Bradv

"The Arbitration Committee does not settle good-faith content disputes between editors."

Bad faith is exactly the charge I am levelling. Is it an innocent act to tell me something cannot be brought up because it was covered already, when they must know, or should have had the courtesy to realise, at least part of that claim violates the law of Physics? What had not happened yet, cannot have been known then.

"The decision you are referring to was a community request for comment – see WP:DAILYMAIL."

I have never disputed this was the case. Indeed, the fact that it is, is the whole point of the request.

"Editors are expected to abide by the results of community decisions, and not to cause disruption due to disagreements"

I have abided by the decision, especially because it is clearly marked as a community decision, to the point of not even correcting a serious article defect, for fear of being seen to undermine it. I want to know why I must do that, if it is allegedly for the good of Wikipedia. And consequently, if everyone who got Wikipedia to that place, was complying with the rules. I mean, you do have a rule against knowingly lying to achieve ones aims? I can at least assume that, right? And if everyone else looked the other because it suits, that's an invalid consensus, right? And I should be allowed to bring that up, as a perfectly valid Wikipedia policy based objection, right?

If you genuinely think my efforts to highlight the problems with DAILYMAIL have been disruptive, and you are saying that as a member of the Arbitration Committee, I guess there's nothing more to be said.

I wish I could say more, but certain people have been kind enough to tell me to not say things which might scare the crap out of other people here who perhaps might not know, well, I'm not even allowed to say what they don't know, I don't think. Brian K Horton (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Technical Request?

• (Non-administrator comment) please log in under your original account. Thanks, ——Serial ^# 22:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance, but is this a technical request? I have multiple devices, and as far as I can recall, this is the one I first used. Brian K Horton (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the suggestion is that you should use your original account, not original device. That is, User:Brian K Horton might not be your only account here. (I'm not saying that myself, just explaining what I think this means.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Really?

Re [1]. You appear to be climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. Bad idea. Guy (help!) 14:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked

Let's skip the inevitable further disruptive editing; I've blocked you as an uninvolved administrator (outside of my arbclerk duties) as you are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. None of your edits have been to main space, and all of them are focused on arguing about the deprecation of The Daily Mail as a source. You're clearly only editing here to right some perceived great wrongs, and your attempts to convince otherwise- such as the above unblock request- appear to only be lip service, since you quickly did a 180 on what you said there with your arbcom case request. Furthermore, you also just got off a block for personal attacks and harassment, and then accuse others off gaslighting; as KrakatoaKatie says, 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. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 15:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I can take the losses, it's the fairness of the fight that concerns me. I know the difference between a disagreement and gaslighting, and if anyone genuinely thinks I don't, well, I guess now they don't even have to defend that position with some evidence that counters the proof I lodged on this very page a week ago right? I had of course also already disputed on this very page that I was even blocked for harassing Newslinger, and I had certainly given nobody any cause to believe I would not be pursuing this grievance after the block. And of course, my main objection to Deb now is that they still don't seem to accept that there are situations that you can accuse someone of gaslighting, and I said I would be mindful of those going forward, which I have been. There's no reason for anyone to think you couldn't have been aware of any of these basic facts before you implied the opposite, which are all quite separate from your right to hold whatever opinions you want to hold about me. Which begs the question, why did you do it? Why did you omit these facts when forming your opinion? Are we having a mere disagreement here? I guess so. Can't be anything else. I'm sure some kind soul will be along to help me resolve our disagreement. That's what happens on Wikipedia when there is a mere disagreement, right? Brian K Horton (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Brian K Horton, there's your problem right there. You didn't provide any proof, then or now. You merely asserted your opinion as fact. Guy (help!) 18:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The proof I know the difference between disagreement and gaslighting is in the section above that I helpfully titled gaslighting, and the block appeal that referenced it. Had you seen that? Do you dispute its factual accuracy? Do you dispute that people are actually now pointing me to the Wikipedia article to prove I am wrong, when as anyone can see, it proves the exact opposite (it also proves there are people on Wikipedia who apparently don't know Wikipedia is not a reliable source). They are trying to make me think I am crazy, chiefly by telling me I believe and have even done things I know I haven't done or believe. Newslinger's statement is just a continuance of that behaviour, he already knows that I don't just think he is wrong, I have proven it. Just because he can turn some of his text different colours, doesn't mean it is true, or that I am an idiot. It matters what is being said, and what the record actually shows. Nobody cares. It is deliberate. Brian K Horton (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess you weren't interested in proof then? Brian K Horton (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)