User talk:Brian K Horton

Incidents noticeboard discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at User:Brian K Horton 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Gaslighting[edit]

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[edit]

"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)[reply]

Technical Request?[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Really?[edit]

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

Blocked[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Request[edit]

I can't edit the Arbitration Request I filed today because, well, it would be disruptive apparently. It has probably occured to me all too late, but if only for the malevolent satisfaction of knowing all those people who claimed I don't know the difference between a disagreement and gaslighting can be made to choke on their own words, might it be possible for a link to be provided from the word gaslighting, to my section here under that title? Or some other note to inform them of stuff that they should probably have found all by themselves, if they were taking any effort at all to research the matter. Feel free to copy it across in its entirety, if you need my permission to do so. Brian K Horton (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They know what gaslighting is (but even with your definition, you're still wrong in your accusations), I'm quite certain they've already read everything you've said here, and at 7-0 for Decline so far, the case is effectively already rejected. There's going to be no choking on words. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing overly-long comment

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

What do I care that the result is unanimous? It proves my point. It's exactly what you would expect to see in a place with a cultural blindspot to this behaviour. I'm laughing at the fact not one of them even protested Moneytrees' block, not even to remark on the obvious lies it contains. Carefully put some distance between them and him if it went sideways of course, but they needn't have worried, right? Would have taken more time than I have available to even begin to properly address that mix of fact and fiction, opinion and smear. All for someone like you or Yamla to just come along and do what you did last time. Like Deb, I am sure Moneytrees did the same disappearing act, and got out of dodge real fast. Is that normal? I guess it would be for this kind of block.

It certainly matches the pattern of the previous block, and I don't think that is because the manual says that is what should happen. But there's me with my annoying focus on the rules and facts, again. Fits your approach too. You were there, so just for my own amusement, would you like to locate this invented suggestion that I ever gave anyone the impression that I had waived my right to file such a Request? An absolute and total lie, but a convenient one. How remarkable, eh? That we live in a world where I supposedly said somewhere that I wouldn't file such a request, I get blocked for filing said request, but nobody actually wants to stop the request. It suits everybody to let it run, just with me unable to participate.

If this were a mere dispute, they'd be objecting to the manifest unfairness of silencing one party, to effectively hand the floor over to their opponent. Doesn't make sense when two people are just having a disagreement. Would be in everyone's best interest to help them settle their differences through discussion. They know this is gaslighting, they know the damage has already been done, and when faced with the difficult task of acknowledging it and making reparations, or most cruelly and deliberately taking the path that the gaslighter would have asked for, had he been given his three wishes, they choose the latter.

Newslinger knew his earlier attempts had failed, but it's not like he could or would admit his crime there, is it? I don't know why he even bothered making the subtle changes to his story now he has offered it in this pseudo formal setting though, as if trying to dance a tightrope between covering his ass and staying true to the gaslighter's handbook. It's not like anyone cares, or even noticed. He gets the value of knowing I know, of course. I hope he at least hates having underestimated how much support he has here, since he clearly needn't have even commented at all.

The deed is done. I could have pointed out that Newslinger lied when he claimed bias is not a policy based objection, it is after all a requirement to file a neutral RfC and there is only one realistic explanation for why this was waived for DAILYMAIL when you read the debate. But where would that get me? As far as pointing out any other lie that was uttered by a person who has absolutely no plausible excuse for it, except an intent to gaslight me, has got me. I mean, shit, did he accidentally forget or something? Did Debs or Moneytrees accidentally forget the difference between a personal attack and a legitimate grievance? Impossible.

Newslinger has quite deliberately chosen this time to be the first time he has ever acknowledged that I do have the right to accuse him of gaslighting if I use the right venue and provide evidence for deliberation, and he is only doing so now because it further piles on the torture of me knowing that he knew this was a lie all along. Knowing that he just took advantage of the culture of Wikipedia that deliberately turned a blind eye to him acting like he didn't know, because to admit he did, would have made his position look unreasonable and even illogical given his desired outcome, which is the very last thing a gaslighter needs to succeed.

If this were a mere disagreement, that one single dispute on a very simple point of fact, would have gone totally differently, just as pretty much every other aspect that rests on basic facts would have. This is the culture of gaslighting, you want your own facts as well as your own opinions, and you'll happily cast anyone who disagrees and actually brings the facts to the table for you to comment on, as the crazy person barking at the moon. I don't doubt that Katie's flippancy was quite deliberate, I suspect it was her cruelty that persuaded Moneytrees he'd be covered. Why else would he have included her comment, if not to mock me? Suck it up loser, we know we're lying to your face and we know there's not a damn thing you can do about it, is what they are saying. And you all stand by and let them do it.

Look at the table. Look at all those lovely facts going mysteriously uncommented upon by everyone here, the definition of a personal attack, the contents of the consensus policy, the wording of the RfC policy, the very definition of the role and responsibility of the Arbitration Committee. All ignored. What a strange way to approach a mere dispute, right? Rather rude, don't you think? Is there, I don't know, a policy for that, Mr. Administrator? Or does it only apply to me, not the people like the one above, whose accusation couched as a question didn't seem to offend your sense of sensibilities at all.

Perhaps if it had, perhaps if they were blocked right now, for impoliteness, they'd never have even got the opportunity to tell the obvious lie that I supposedly filed a near perfectly formatted request. Anyone who looks, knows that is a lie, I couldn't even get the damn thing to display the name right. Just another fact on the table of things that must be ignored. Shit, they probably even know it themselves now, silently watching this page as they must be, but obviously don't want and now don't need to go back and correct the record.

A culture of gaslighting looks the other way when that sort of thing happens, knowing as they do that it just piles on the torture and misery of their victim, especially when they see it happen in a place where they are literally being asked, hey, do you guys have a gaslighting problem? Unanimous views that they do not. Wow. It's so blatant. Were it a mere disagreement, you'd expect a variety of opinions, a care for what is truth and what is a lie, or at least some idea that different people see things different ways. But here, it does nobody any good to break from the orthodoxy. Gaslighting is horrific behaviour, so they are unanimous. Didn't happen. I wonder, has anyone on Wikipedia ever actually been blocked for gaslighting? Something to ponder, in these times of change.

I know they don't believe this is a mere disagreement, precisely because they're not doing anything that a rational person would to to settle the disagreement. They're saying and doing as little as they need to do, to simply deny this is gaslighting. The little flavours of mockery and abuse and general merriment, all speak to a gaslighter's glee at success. And by extension, by denying there is a behaviour issue at hand, they conveniently avoid the thorny issue of explaining how things like DAILYMAIL even happen, if gaslighting isn't just baked right in to the recipe. I'm not half as stupid as they think I am.

I know they all know I didn't bring them a content dispute in that regard. I know they know the lie about IPSO told by the person who filed an improper RFC featured the same odd tittering around it. Like a bunch of achoolkids who knew they had technically been caught in the act, but also knew that their parents wouldn't do a damn thing about it. I caught Newslinger telling bare faced lies, repeatedly, and I made sure to demonstrate he was not merely mistaken, that we were not merely talking at cross purposes. I gave him every chance. And yet here I am, apparently supposed to be impressed his nominal bosses see nothing out of hand at all. See no evil, hear no evil.

They're happy to have concluded the best way forward here, was to grasp the handle of the knife that was already part way in, and push it all the way in. Moneytrees just twisted it a little, because he can, because he has that power over me.

If I am wrong, give me a sign. I am not wrong, and they will not come here to prove me wrong. Just as you have brought no proof, just assertion, not even caring that it partly contradicts the prevailing view that I am as stupid as one legged frog. It is these almost silent admissions, virtually whispered by some of you, that I'm no fool, that give you away.

The culture here rewards what they have done, so why would they have done anything else? Stand up for the truth? Pah. That is some lame 20th Century thinking. This is generation Wikipedia. Don't like the truth? Don't like the fact reliable sources don't share your disdain for the Mail? Then just change your reality. Even start a biased proposal and fake the statistics. There's no rule against that here. You must be dreaming if you thought there was. Seeing things. Happens a lot, I guess, to people who don't quite understand the culture of Wikipedia. They sure be crazy, those outsiders who don't know your country ways, right?

Tell the whole world that you have the utmost regard for reliable sources and neutrality, and just hope and pray that people like me, we city folk, can't do too much damage by asking a few logical questions that stem from applying even a cursory look over things like DAILYMAIL. Don't treat that as an opportunity to improve your encyclopedia, a chance to make your decisions appear more sound and robust.

And ignore the fact that I rather hilariously found a straight up fabrication in your own article on the Mail, one that speaks directly to what might be the reason why choosing your own reality in the back office areas of Wikipedia, is not such a great idea for the quality of the product out front, and certainly doesn't do much to dissuade anyone of the already quite prevalent suspicions out here in the real world, that the makers of the product aren't so hot on the old hygenine and cross contamination rules.

Don't do any of that, just gaslight the living hell out of any and all curious cats. Torture little old me, who has absolutely no training in how to deal with such things, other than the sort of tools any legislator or lawyer would have. No legal threat offered or implied, of course. I know now how you lose your minds over that, which says a lot in of itself.

You should have took my concerns seriously, you should have let those discussions happen on Wikipedia, where you at least might benefit from advance warning of impending threats. That you have not, is just another data point in explaining the thorny question, what is Wikipedia. What nobody here probably realised, is I didn't come here with no knowledge of Wikipedia. I came here knowing for example, just how few readers are even aware they are supposed to click the references provided.

That is what got me started, pulling at that thread, the curiosity of the cat. I am now most definitely interested in why pulling that single little thread, has got you all so damn panicked, so frightened that you actually resort to trying to make me think I am absolutely crazy, rather than admit your own truth. It's fascinating. And obviously, sick. Very very sick. Brian K Horton (talk) 11:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped reading at "What do I care that the result is unanimous? It proves my point." I suppose you might actually genuinely believe that everyone disagreeing with you and nobody agreeing with you is proof that you're right (and in accordance with WP:AGF, I'll try not to suspect you're just trolling at this point). But that approach is incompatible with volunteering at a community project like Wikipedia (and, in fact, with rationality). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage access revoked[edit]

Please note that I don't think you're crazy, I just think you're disruptive and a timewaster. Talkpage access revoked because of the attacks and assumptions of bad faith you have been posting. If you wish to appeal your block, please read the Guide to appealing blocks and then use the Unblock Ticket Request System. Bishonen | tålk 12:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

July 2020[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brian K Horton, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brian K Horton, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]