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:
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:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
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)
{{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)
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.
{unblock|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 two further posts, one to him, which did not directly accuse another editor of gaslighting, and [ one] to another editor, which did. 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). 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. 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)}}.
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)
- (Non-administrator comment) please log in under your original account. Thanks, ——Serial # 22:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)