User talk:BrianFNewman

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).

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

Request reason:

I am not a sock of Brian K Horton (and he for that matter was not the controller of the heroic Bork Ten). Bradv is clearly falsifying CheckUser results. We deliberately use similar (but entirely common) ISP/device/browser combinations just to see if people like Brad are willing to cross that line, in defence of the integrity of the Wikipedia cult. What Buidhe sees as verbosity, is merely a sign of our intelligence. Being able to use your words effectively, to be a skilled deployer of rhetoric, is a skill many Wikipedia editors lack. Which is ironic. All three of us came to this issue independently, because unsurprisingly, corruption of the magnitude being seen at the Daily Mail article, where Wikipedia editors genuinely seem to think they can get away with inventing their own facts (because apparently merely having their own opinion and the help of Jimmy Wales' board seat on The Guardian didn't achieve the desired results), is oft discussed in off-wiki forums. A picture perfect example of what Wikipedia is (clue:not an encyclopedia). We can keep doing this, or you can accept that when you send people like Guy Macon and Drmies to an issue, you're not sending your best and brightest, and factual, policy based counterpoints are needed, if only to save yourself from the inevitable embarrassment. For there is literaly a source that says DAILYMAIL was arguably about bias, not acccuracy, and there are no sources that say it was about accuracy in their own voice, they merely repeat the fact that this is what you claim it was about. These are the facts. All easily discovered by journalists or Ombudsmen. You won't get very far in your attempts to suppress them, by making these sort of leaps of imagination, or worse. Newslinger is a gaslighter. He proves it every day (unless someone here seriously wants to argue he can't have known about DEFINING, and there will one day be an Administrative use for his category). It is because information like that, about the ways and means of the higher echelons of Wikipedia governance, is so easily discovered, and easily conveyed to the media, general public, even the Ombudsmen, that presumably motivates Bradv to creatively interpret CheckUser results. I would too, if I were in his position, one of the twelve users theoretically charged with ensuring Administrative users are not corrupt. In his case, the very person who is on the hook and answerable for the question, why is Guy Chapman still allowed to be an Administrator? INVOLVED blocks and false portrayals of YouTube videos as "educational"? High time to clean house, rather than promote his protege, no? But I am not in his position. And he knows it. And yes, sure, before you say it, technically this is MEATPUPPETRY. And to that, all I would say is, have you realy thought this through? Is defending your ability to invent your own reality regarding the Mail (and intimidate established users who see it for what it is into looking the other way) really what that policy is all about? Search your feelings. I know there is good in there somewhere. You are Wikipedia's last hope, random reviewer, because this is going mainstream pretty damn soon, you saw to that when you came to the bizarre conclusion that people wouldn't notice that when it comes to evaluating Fox News, academic sources are relevant, where they apparently weren't for DAILYMAIL (you do remember having faked your own statistics in that discussion, right? You do realise how that makes people like Macon and Drmies look to outsiders, when they claim to be unaware of such basic and obvious facts?).

Decline reason:

Thanks for admitting you were violating WP:SOCK. Stop it. Yamla (talk) 13:20, 28 July 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.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.