User talk:Harry Sibelius

Hello, Harry Sibelius, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! - wolf 01:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started

Finding your way around

Editing articles

Getting help

Frequently asked questions
Cheatsheet
Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
Help pages
Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles

How you can help

Community Portal
Join a WikiProject
Follow Wikipedia etiquette
Practice civility
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently been editing post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Weller talk 13:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

In this post you assume massive bad faith: "You clearly are acting in bad faith, and do not actually have any problem with conspiracy theories, or else you would've deleted the other comments". That is fairly outrageous, as the comment Valjean deleted was an actual conspiracy theory, unlike the comments you cite. Drowlord had given a source for the well-known fact (which is already in the article) that Tarrio had worked for the FBI earlier, but no source for the leap to his second sentence, "The organization is a puppet hate group run by the FBI to justify their domestic terrorism work". Did you not check Drowlord's source before supporting them and attacking Valjean? Any more such bad-faith posts and you risk being blocked from the page, or indeed topic banned from the area. Bishonen | tålk 09:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Multiple conspiracy theories had already appeared on the thread in question. They have not been deleted.

The OED defines a conspiracy as: "The action of conspiring; combination of persons for an evil or unlawful purpose."

Gouncbeatduke wrote: "Certainly [that he is analogous to a self-hating Jew] is one theory of why Tarrio is in bed with so many white nationalists. Another is that he willing to join forces with white nationalists (with whom he disagrees) in what he views as a more important fight against socialism."

The poster is claiming that Tarrio is secretly conspiring with white nationalists, while publicly claiming not to be one himself. Unlike Drowlord, no source was provided. Why has this comment not been deleted?

Here is another, by Dronebogus, from the same thread:

"I think I saw something about Proud Boys saying they think Tarrio is just a front to make them look better."

There is obviously no source provided for this either.

Can you deny that these are conspiracy-theories? How?

If not, why do you support the posting of conspiracy theories that are not at all supported by sources, but not the posting of conspiracy theories that are at least partially supported by sources? Would it not be logical to disapprove of all conspiracy-theories? Would it not be more logical to approve of only the conspiracy-theory that was at least partially supported by the source? Would it not be more logical to leave them all up? Instead, you and Valjean support the deletion of theories that are at least partially supported by sources, and defend the non-deletion of theories not backed up by any sources. Why? Out of the four possible courses of action that you and Valjean could have taken, did you not choose the least logical one?

Furthermore, while I am new, and may not be fully versed in the rules, I have not so far been able to find any such rule that posts on talk-pages should or even may be deleted if they reference conspiracy-theories. I could find nothing in "Wikipedia:fringe theories", "Wikipedia:talk pages", or "Wikipedia:deletion". Is this an actual, de jure rule, that applies equally to everyone, or simply a de facto rule carried out, arbitrarily, against certain posts? If the latter is the case, then I understand why Drowlord's comment was deleted. If there is in fact some rule allowing the deletion of conspiracy theories on talk pages, I would be grateful if you provided a link to it; if there is such a rule, the other comments in question must be deleted, and if there is no such rule, Drowlord's post must be restored.

Finally, I don't think that you have even provided satisfactory evidence that I was wrong to accuse Valjean of bad faith, as "Wikipedia:AGF" (which I will not link to, as I am aware that you are the author of a page encouraging users not to do so, and wish not to tweak your sensibilities) states that: " ... editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such." I have given specific evidence of my accusation, namely, that Valjean deleted a post, gave poor reasons regarding why he did so, while leaving similar comments alone, and admitted to not having read the very short thread before doing so. As such, Wikipedia's guidelines seem to allow me to accuse Valjean of bad-faith, not only in the conventional sense, but in the specific Wikipedian sense as well (being "unconstructive").

Finally:

You just assumed bad-faith on my part. Why? Are you now at risk of having to ban yourself? I have to imagine that you are, as I am bound by Wikipedia's rules to imagine that you are acting in good-faith. Thank you for enlightening me regarding these rules, by the way, as I am fairly new.

What say you? Harry Sibelius (talk) 06:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to waste a lot of time on this. Drowlord had e total of 4 posts at the time they posted, the latest from 2020, 3 complaining about the "ultra-left wing" sources in an article. The post that was reverted was sheer nonsense about the Proud Boys being a puppet hate group. That was an obviously disruptive post by someone with no serious interest in Wikipedia. I'm sure you know that there's no such rule about conspiracy theories. As I said, it was just a disruptive edit and in no way helpful. Doug Weller talk 09:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller What is your point? Many of Valjean's posts are about how he personally dislikes Fox News. Does that allow me to delete any of his posts that I wish? Do you really think Valjean has the right to go around deleting post's because the Drowlord had previously identified The Forward as ultra left-wing?

I honestly was not sure there was a rule against promoting conspiracy-theories, which is why I asked. Why would I think there was not such a rule? When Valjean deleted the comment, he justified it because it depicted a "conspiracy theory". Two editors immediately came to his defense. When I reasonably asked if this was because there was a rule against conspiracy theories, you both admitted that it was not.

Now, after telling me that I am wrong for assuming bad-faith on Valjean's part, you are assuming bad-faith on my part for allegedly pretending not to know that what you are against is not against the rules. Harry Sibelius (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're right. The idea that there could be such a rule seems really bizarre to me, but you're new so you should get a pass on that. But you might consider that two very experienced editors might have more understand than you do. Doug Weller talk 11:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can deny that the others are conspiracy theories; did you not notice I already did? As for explaining why not, I'm not going down that rabbithole. You may explain why they are, if you want to.

Your response to me is altogether so hung up on reasoning from rules (e. g. "Is this an actual, de jure rule, that applies equally to everyone, or simply a de facto rule carried out, arbitrarily, against certain posts? If the latter is the case, then I understand why Drowlord's comment was deleted. If there is in fact some rule allowing the deletion of conspiracy theories on talk pages, I would be grateful if you provided a link to it; if there is such a rule, the other comments in question must be deleted, and if there is no such rule, Drowlord's post must be restored.") that I think you might benefit from reading WP:LAWYER. Everything cannot be codified into rules. Specifically, the matter of deleting talkpage posts ("I have not so far been able to find any such rule") is a delicate one, that requires judgment, common sense, and experience of the Wikipedia culture, rather than rules. (For the culture reason, new users would do well to be cautious of doing it till they feel more at home.) For an example of using these faculties, see Doug Weller's post.

As for your discovery that I assumed bad faith myself, compare Wikipedia:Our social policies are not a suicide pact. I wanted to avoid TLDR, as my complaint was fairly elaborate as it was (or so I thought, until I saw your reply), but I suppose it might have been better to explain the "bad faith" thing more fully. I'll try that now: AFAICS, you either didn't read Drowlord's source before opining, which would be culpably negligent, or you read it but ignored which bit of Drowlord's claims it supported (=only the bit already in the article, not the far more egregious second sentence), which would be acting in bad faith. Which was it? Bishonen | tålk 10:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

What statement of mine are you specifically accusing of being uttered in "bad-faith?" You must be clearer. I read Drowlord's source, just as I read the lack of one from Gouncbeatduke and Dronebogus, as I have also read your continued lack of explanation for why you believe that their posts should not be deleted. I do not need to defend my actions, as I deleted no one's post, and, as you have just admitted, there is no rule that posts should be deleted if Valjean thinks they are conspiracy-theories. The burden is not on me to justify myself, but on Valjean and yourself. The only guideline that you seem to be accusing me of breaking is of acting in bad-faith, but you have not told me what, specifically, you object to that I have done.

I am sure you probably have a very intelligent reason for not answering me, regarding why you have not deleted the other posts, and that you are just too smart to enter this "rabbit hole" of an argument, though you still seem to have enough time to argue with me over less obvious points.

But since you have kindly given me permission to, and I am assuming good-faith, I will explain myself one more time:

Gouncbeatduke postulated that Tarrio is a "self-hating" black latino, who is conspiring with unnamed "white nationalists" to bring down "socialism." Dronebogus said that he read from a source (that he did not produce or identify) that Tarrio is a "front" to trick people into thinking that the Proud Boys "look better."

The OED defines a conspiracy as: "The action of conspiring; combination of persons for an evil or unlawful purpose." Collins Dictionary defines it as: "a belief that a group of people are secretly trying to harm someone or achieve something."

The users that you defend are saying that Tarrio conspiring with white nationalists, and hiding it, and that he is a front to make the Proud Boys seem like they are not white supremacists, since Tarrio is not white.

Consider the mammoth contradiction evident in your position: you maintain that it is a conspiracy-theory to say that the Proud Boys is a decoy put up by the FBI to deceive the public, but it is not a conspiracy-theory to say that Tarrio is a decoy put up by the Proud Boys to deceive the public. Harry Sibelius (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I must be still clearer? No, that's pure sealioning. I have been quite clear, and asked a clear question ("Which was it?") which you're tap-dancing around.

When you say above that "Two editors immediately came to his defense", I presume you're referring to Doug Weller and me (?), so I should point out that I'm not posting here as an editor defending Valjean, but as an admin, warning you. Perhaps I should repeat: Any more such bad-faith posts and you risk being blocked from Proud Boys and its talkpage, or indeed topic banned from the area. Bishonen | tålk 11:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

As Bishonen says. Neither of us have defended Valjean. And I strongly suggest you read the bit about contentious topics above. Doug Weller talk 13:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will answer your question, again. I read Drowlord's post, and I read his source. What he said about Tarrio being an FBI agent was present in the source material. What he said about PB being an FBI-operation was not. I have never said a single thing that contradicts what I just said.

What was your point in asking me that question? What bad-faith action are you accusing me of taking? I do not care what cute little phrase you use to avoid answering it; this is really a very, very simple thing for me to ask of you, and as an admin it is your duty to do so. Harry Sibelius (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that post is probably for me, even though it's indented as if for Doug. The bad-faith action was to attack Valjean over their removal of Drowlord's post. I don't believe it's my duty as an admin to now keep engaging with you further, and I don't intend to. If you have a problem with that, WP:ANI would be the right noticeboard for a complaint. Bishonen | tålk 09:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

have you ever edited with a different account?

soibangla (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, with an IP address, around maybe 2009 or 2010, on the Stanley Kubrick entry. I also attempted to create an entry for the Angry Video Game Nerd, but it was deleted (this was prior to the existence of such a page.) Harry Sibelius (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you are casting aspersions upon me

please stop soibangla (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and I'm the one who can't use a computer? what a spectacular waste of time. LOL! [1] soibangla (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries are not meant to be used instead of talk pages or to discuss other good faith editors

Doug Weller talk 21:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, noted Harry Sibelius (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Leo Frank. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. PatGallacher (talk) 11:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to be more specific. Harry Sibelius (talk) 04:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your change to the first line was clearly POV. PatGallacher (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can think of that you could possibly be referring to was my addition of "convicted murderer" to the "short-description." Is that what you're referring to, and if so, how is that "POV"? Frank was a convicted murderer and our reliable sources say so. Harry Sibelius (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but his conviction is widely regarded as unjust, and in the context of a very short description this is POV. PatGallacher (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying that it's "POV" to state objective facts ("convicted murderer"), but not "POV" to state opinions ("widely regarded as unjust"). This seems to be the reverse of what "point-of-view" is conventionally understood to mean. Can you quote to me from a guideline which supports your unconventional interpretation? Harry Sibelius (talk) 05:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

notice

You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally editors must be logged-in have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Shrike (talk) 05:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was a revert of @Abinavmishra's revert; he had removed the Huwara pogrom from the list of pogroms. Abinavmishra has less edits than I do. Therefore, by your own logic, you must revert his edit as well, and restore the Huwara pogrom. Harry Sibelius (talk) 05:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. It was added originally by someone with only 9 edits. No one eligible to add it has restored it. All of you have now been given alerts and told not to edit (in articles) about the Huwara incident again. Doug Weller talk 07:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very clever, and thanks for the warning. Harry Sibelius (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Frank

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Leo Frank, you may be blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You removed material from the short description of this article without a consensus to do so. The ccurrent consensus on the talk page supports the short description that you removed. Editing against consensus is disruptive editing and can lead tp your being blocked from editing int he future. Please do no edit against consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? So far there are two editors (including you) who have supported your changes and two against (including me). That is obviously not consensus. Also, what's with the Nuvola player icon? Harry Sibelius (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I simply reverted the article back to the way it was when I first found it; I added nothing new. It is you who made changes. The onus is on you to persuade others to include your new material. Harry Sibelius (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Partial blocks

You have been blocked for six months from Leo Frank, which you have been disrupting, and from Talk:Leo Frank which you have been bludgeoning. I'd also be interested in an explanation of this alert on User talk:1Trevorr, where you wrote "The two other editors are claiming that changes you and I objected to don't count when making consensus because they blocked you.". What does that mean? It sounds like an accusation that you and Trevorr are victims of De Causa and/or Beyond My Ken abusing their admin tools in furtherance of their POV. (They don't actually have any admin tools, and can't block anybody). I'll WP:AGF that you must have meant something else, but what? If you don't know that Acroterion blocked Trevorr, and Cullen328 extended the block to indefinite, you can see it just above your own post on Trevorr's page. 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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 14:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I'd be mighty interested in hearing why you're so interested in making common cause with 1Trevorr as well. Acroterion (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because he is an editor who agrees with me that "wrongfully convicted" should not be in the SD. Do you avoid making "common cause" with those who agree with you?

Have I sated your "mighty interest" in my interest, pardner? Harry Sibelius (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor I agree with turns out to be indefinitely blocked for Jew-baiting, I'd question my own reasons for seeking such allies. Acroterion (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for advice. Harry Sibelius (talk) 00:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly straight-forward. Both @DeCausa and @Beyond My Ken notified me that if I continued taking issue with their edits, I would probably be blocked. BMK also notified me that his supporters outnumbered mine, meaning he had consensus. When I mentioned that we actually both had an equal number of supporters in the talk-page for our respective positions, he said that because 1Trevorr had been blocked, he no longer counted. I don't know who's an admin and who isn't, but considering their choice of words, it is very safe to assume that they were threatening to have me blocked, whether they would do it themselves or whether someone else would do it. None of the admins who have done the blocking have actually contributed to the talk-page.

DeCAuse: If you carry on with this WP:TENDENTIOUS POV-driven approach to this article (and other articles from what I can see from your talk page) you'll end up blocked.

1Trevorr has been blocked for a week for their anti-semitic edit to the article with a warning that they could have been indeffed for the above anti-semitic post. Keep going with that line and you'll go the same way. It's up to you.

Both of those sounds like threats (to the degree that you can be threatened in a silly little internet tussle); it clearly sounds like they are either going to ban me themselves, or appeal for someone else to do so on their behalf. I apologize if I erred in the details. Harry Sibelius (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out to you, neither myself nor DeCausa are admins, a fact easily ascertained, so we are in no position to issue threats to anyone. What I gave you was a warning which was based on my almost 18 years of editing here. Such warnings are a frequent occurrence on en.wiki. I have seen a lot of behavior similar to yours, and I have seen that such behavior often results in the editor being blocked, as has indeed happened in your case. You are lucky in one respect, because the partial block that you received is a relatively recent thing, and before that you would likely have been blocked from editing anywhere on the site. You really should consider what has happened to you as a lesson to be learned, and change the way that you edit and interact with other editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concern. Harry Sibelius (talk) 00:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Off-wiki WP:CANVASSING?

A brand-spanking new editor, Vickycatorz, has shown up on Talk:Leo Frank to support your position. They deny being your sockpuppet, but they wrote on their talk page "The Leo Frank case was resently brought to my attention..." [2]. Because of these two facts, I am inquiring if you are the person who brought the discussion at Talk:Leo Frank to their attention, and asked them to support you there? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Harry Sibelius (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I accept this. Doug Weller talk 09:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Confederate guerillas

You seem to be engaged in attempting to whitewash articles about Confederate guerillas with your edits to William Quantrill, Bushwackers, and Lawrence Massacre. Such editing is an example of violating WP:NPOV by attempting to skew articles in the direction of what appears to be your personal point of view. Please do not make these kinds of edits again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As always, the onus is on you to defend these additions. Feel free to bring it up on the talk page for the article in question. Harry Sibelius (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are removing sourced information from articles without a consensus to do so. So far, multiple editors have reverted your deletions, so there is an inherent consensus that you are wrong and the addition of the sourced material is right. I suggest that you re-read WP:ONUS, because it does not give you the carte blanche to remove material you personally object to that you seem to think it does. Please stop editing with your POV, or I shall be forced to report you to admins. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you or one of the other editors could cite the source that you think provides this interpretation. Harry Sibelius (talk) 09:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "inherent?"

If the material is already sourced, it should be fairly easy for you to provide that source. The right place to bring that up would be on the talk-pages for Quantrill, Bushwhackers, and the Lawrence Massacre, as I invited you to do so, every time--not on my talk-page.

In Bushwhackers, for example, you, @WikiCleanerMan, and @XXzoonamiXX support the inclusion of this new source, asserting that it affirms the contention that the Union regarded Bushwhackers as terrorists because of their lack of insignia. I did not find that in the article, but if that's because I did not read it closely enough, you can easily correct me by quoting from it.

However, when you reverted my revert, you also maintained that "This is the lede, where citations are not required. Evidecne in the body of the article is sufficient to support this statement".

Why, then, did you make this edit, in which you restored the very citation that you say is unnecessary, and have refused to comment on?

I am willing to concede that I am not an expert on Bleeding Kansas, nor guerilla warfare during the American Civil War, and I am willing to be proven wrong. But your reluctance to discuss the subject, and preference for relying on admins, suggests to me that you are not able to do so. Harry Sibelius (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for three months for persistent tendentious editing and treating Wikipedia as a battleground. See warnings[3][4] and previous blocks[5]. 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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 08:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, will do. Harry Sibelius (talk) 09:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What was this "warning?" It appears to be a blank page. Harry Sibelius (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know what went wrong there, thanks for pointing it out. Fixed now. Bishonen | tålk 09:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Appreciate it man. Harry Sibelius (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, Bishonen is a "she". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ma'am. Harry Sibelius (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen May I have a further explanation of this reason for blocking me? I don't really understand what the problem could be. Repeated edits were made to Bleeding Kansas related pages, without sources. I reverted the edits, because I did not see sourced material to back up the additions. When I did so, the same user (usually @WikiCleanerMan), but also @Beyond My Ken) would revert it. I made it clear that I was willing to be proven wrong on the talk-page, but no sources were ever presented to me that supported the additions, and then I was blocked. Harry Sibelius (talk) 06:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harry, you make some worthwhile points, and I will try to answer you fully. Unfortunately I have some RL stuff going on, but I'll be as quick as I can. Bishonen | tålk 13:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I really appreciate that, thank you. Harry Sibelius (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

I now think I was too hasty in blocking you. Your editing at and around Leo Frank probably affected me unduly. But you had already been sanctioned for that editing, with partial blocks, and I do believe you have been more cautious since then. There is still IMO a tendentiousness to your editing, exemplified by your edits to Pogrom and its talkpage; but it's not serious enough for a long sitewide block, and I apologize for placing one; I should have considered more deeply. You have been unblocked. Bishonen | tålk 11:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for reconsidering. Harry Sibelius (talk) 02:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 22:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it took me quite a bit of digging to find it. Could you link the page to me directly in the future? Harry Sibelius (talk) 06:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to William Quantrill while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Abecedare (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare What edit are you referring to? Harry Sibelius (talk) 05:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the IPs who made edits matching yours at William Quantrill. They are also mentioned at this SPI report. Abecedare (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning, but those aren't me. Harry Sibelius (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for tenedentious editing, battleground conduct and refusal/inability to follow advice/warnings as displayed, most recently at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harry Sibelius (and in particular, the comments posted after Bishonen's warning about long, redundant and argumentative postings)..

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Abecedare (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two notes: I haven't blocked you for sock-puppetry per se because while the evidence at SPI is concerning, I cannot be confident that all the listed IPs were you. Secondly, the indefinite block need not be forever but any (possibly conditional) unblock by me will need you to display an understanding of how your conduct was problematic and what would change if you were to be unblocked. Abecedare (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Abecedare, I am having trouble making sense of your reasoning. You cited a number of guidelines as reasons for blocking me, but the only activity you cited with diffs to back up these accusations (noting that you were blocking me for this action in particular) was my continued use of a particular defense of against a specific accusation during the SPI against me.

You alleged that I had been given specific instructions by Bishonen not to engage in "long, redundant and argumentative postings". This is a stretch; what Bishonen said was: "You are not a clerk, CheckUser or patrolling admin, Harry, so please don't post in this section, especially not nonsense like your second post there. You've said it all above already, and repeating it here doesn't make it any more logical."

The "nonsense", as Bishonen refers to it, is probably what you meant by "long, redundant and argumentative postings". This is obviously an incredibly creative reading of Bishonen's warning, which I don't grant at all, as her post clearly refers to a very specific argument of mine, but for the sake of argument, I will proceed as if it were valid.

The "nonsense" post of mine that Bishonen asked me not to reiterate was a defense I had made against accusations by another user, who had been continually pestering me for "evidence" that I hadn't socked. The "nonsense" was, I believe, a very good rebuttal to his accusations, and I stand by it. After Bishonen discouraged me from repeating this defense, Nythar asked me to further elaborate on the "nonsense". I had been encouraged many times to offer "evidence" in my favor during the SPI, under penalty of being blocked, so I obliged him.

This seems to be your main complaint; that I continued posting about the "nonsense" after an admin had discouraged me not to. But I had been asked by one of my accusers to clarify this "nonsense".

So if I reiterated my "nonsense" defense, I was at risk of being blocked by an admin (though this was not made clear to me until after I had been blocked, which is itself objectionable). But if I refused the request for me to clarify my "nonsense" defense, I was also at risk of being blocked (which was my main concern, as it had been made clear to me by several of my accusers that this was the case). Either way, I was at risk of being blocked. This is obviously a Catch 22. Either way, I would be blocked Harry Sibelius (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The tendentious editing and battleground conduct I mentioned in my block notice referred not only to your editing at the SPI but to essentially the past few months of your editing history that I have reviewed (including at Talk:Antifa (United States), Talk:Leo Frank and this very talkpage). And the WP:IDHT conduct too was apparent in those discussion and your posts at SPI (including this one, which you didn't mention in the above post) after Bishonen's specific feedback was just the last straw.

I had hoped that the block would send the message across that such conduct, which is a drain on wikipedia's editorial resources, is not productive and cause you to reexamine and change your approach; and, if that had happened, as I said above, I would have supported an unblock. Unfortunately, your post-block posts especially the exchanges with Valereee (whose patient explanations and advice are really worth re-reading and heeding!) indicate that the problem persists. Abecedare (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure why I would've mentioned that post in my appeal, as I didn't see you cite it in your block, but maybe I missed it. Your main complaint seems to be that I defend my edits, and attack the edits of others when I disagree with them, which is what I have understood Wikipedia: Bold to mean. I don't see how any of my behavior during the SPI has been egregious, particularly considering the conduct of those accusing me. Reading Wikipedia: Battleground, it is not clear to me what guideline I have violated. Could you quote to me what exact rule in "Battleground" that you think I have violated with these posts? I have been mostly civil, if sometimes sarcastic. I always intend to defend my actions factually and logically, and believe that I do. You and some other admins obviously disagree, but you have not really explained why you disagree, just that you do, which isn't really helpful to me.

Furthermore, not that I really expect to be unblocked, but you seem to be suggesting that the most outrageous of my many infractions was my during the SPI into me. I don't know how you can read Bishonen's post as a suggestion that I was no longer allowed to make long, redundant and argumentative postings on that page; all it suggests to me is that I need not re-iterate the Bierfield dispute (which I didn't; I only clarified my position on it when directly asked), and that I shouldn't post in that specific section, which I refrained from doing again. But even if your reading was reasonable, how would you suggest, in the future (if there is one), for me to conduct myself in such a situation? I had been directly asked about the subject that you claimed I had been asked not to discuss by another user. Should I have declined to respond? I was being told by the other users that if I did not provide evidence that I hadn't socked, I would be blocked. To me, that was evidence. You seem to have many opinions on things I shouldn't've done, but no suggestions on what I actually should've done. If you were in my position, what would you have done? Harry Sibelius (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Harry, I'm afraid that this exchange too is getting repetitive, illustrative of the very problems you were blocked for, and is no longer productive. You have asked for the block to be overturned already and that appeal will be reviewed in due course by an independent admin (I would recommend writing a revised block-appeal based on the feedback Valereee provided but that is up to you). I'd be happy to answer any questions the reviewing admin may have about the block. PS: "last straw" does not mean "most outrageous". Abecedare (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that you always have the option to have the block reviewed by an independent admin, who may well be willing to shorten the block or unblock unconditionally. In order to do so, just post {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} here on your takpage with your actual reason replacing the placeholder "Your reason here" text. Abecedare (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, to be clear: you did not end up finding that I had used any socks, ever, but blocked me based on how I defended myself during the sock investigation? Harry Sibelius (talk) 04:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What Abecedare said was "[W]hile the evidence at SPI is concerning, I cannot be confident that all the listed IPs were you", which to me is quite clear. They did not find that you used the socks listed in the SPI case, but also did not find that you hadn't used socks, so please do not claim in the future that you have been exonerated from that charge of socking, since that is not the case. And, importantly, they did not refer to socking "ever", as you put it, but only to the socks in that specific SPI case. You have not been exonerated from the suspicion of WP:MEATPUPPETRY in the previous instance of User:Vickycatorz (who, incidentally, hasn't edited since you were banned from the Leo Frank article, despite their expressed great interest in that subject).
Your block was based on WP:Tendentious editing, WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct and WP:I didn't hear that behavior on the SPI case page and in the ANI report you opened on WikiCleanerMan (who, not so incidentally, provided evidence in that SPI case). Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, curious how they haven't edited the Frank article since I've been banned from it, since that would be the entire purpose of my creating the sock. Harry Sibelius (talk) 08:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the theoretical reason for your creating a WP:MEATPUPPET (not a sock) to edit Talk: Leo Frank was to create a false consensus on the article talk page, when the existing consensus was against your position - this is a typical reason for sockpuppets and meatpuppets to exist. With your being blocked from editing the article and the talk page, there was no longer any need for another !vote, so there was no purpose in Vickycatorz editing there, and they stopped. And since Vickycatorz was (theoretically) only there on your behalf, there was no reason for them to continue editing elsewhere on Wikipedia.
Now, if Vickycatorz starts up editing Wikipedia again with you being blocked, each and every edit becomes a new piece of data by which a checkuser can compare your information with theirs, and determine the likeliness of a relationship between the two. Further, if a new user should pop up and begin to edit the articles you've been editing, or new but related articles, in a fashion that is similar to yours (i.e. whitewashing Confederate terrorists, for instance) interest will be drawn to that new editor, and a new SPI could be the result. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And of course users probably will in the future, as you never added sources for your claim about terrorism. Is there checkuser evidence that I ever used any of these accounts?

I will give you this: you are very good at maneuvering the bureaucracy. Failing to prove that I used socks, I still ended up blocked all the same for how I defended myself against the accusation that I used socks. You couldn't convict me of the crime, but you could get me for contempt of court. It's unscrupulous, but a clever move, if you have the institutional power to back it up. Harry Sibelius (talk) 05:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's far from unusual that the crime is not what trips up the criminal, but the cover up of the crime. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bro, you're talking like you're Woodward and Bernstein. What was my "cover up?" I don't think you coherently thought that sentence through. Harry Sibelius (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped replying because you guys really scare me. Another reason for me not replying is that you guys will present baseless accusations (sock account???) as fact. You cant have an honest discussion with people who will delete any information that is not convenient. Vickycatorz (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A three week editing gap and then 32 minutes after Harry posted that on his talk page? DeCausa (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another baseless accusation. Why would I use a sock puppet account? And if I really did that, would you not thing I would make 10 more? You accuse to deflect. Vickycatorz (talk) 06:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So according to @Beyond My Ken, @Vickycatorz not posting is a sign that they are my sock, and according to @DeCausa, their posting is a sign that they are my sock. What would prove that they weren't my sock? I suppose you won't tell me, because then I would become better at socking, like you don't tell me when you open up SPIs on me. However, your SPIs never work, so you might as well tell me. Harry Sibelius (talk) 07:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal

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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked by @Abecedare for how I conducted myself during an SPI investigation, in which I was accused of operating sock and/or meetpuppets. I believe that the SPI was retributive in nature, due to continuous disagreements between myself and a small group of editors, who had already unsuccessfully accused me of using socks in the past. In this second attempt, it was still not concluded that I had I used any socks, but I ended up indeffed all the same. You can read Abecedare's full complaint on my page, but the only action of mine that he specifically cited was this post. He alleged that I had been given specific instructions by @Bishonen not to engage in "long, redundant and argumentative postings". This is a stretch; what Bishonen said was: "You are not a clerk, CheckUser or patrolling admin, Harry, so please don't post in this section, especially not nonsense like your second post there. You've said it all above already, and repeating it here doesn't make it any more logical. The "nonsense", as Bishonen refers to it, is probably what Abecedare meant by "long, redundant and argumentative postings". This is obviously an incredibly creative reading of Bishonen's warning, which I don't grant at all, as her post clearly refers to a very specific argument of mine, but for the sake of argument, I will proceed as if it were valid. The "nonsense" post of mine that Bishonen asked me not to reiterate was a defense I had made against accusations by another user, who had been continually pestering me for "evidence" that I hadn't socked. The "nonsense" was, I believe, a very good rebuttal to his accusations, and I stand by it. I won't reiterate the dispute here, as it's immaterial to my block, but it's all in the SPI archive. After Bishonen discouraged me from repeating this defense, @Nythar, one of the users who was arguing in favor of the idea that I had socked, asked me to further elaborate on the "nonsense". I had been encouraged many times to offer "evidence" in my favor during the SPI, under penalty of being blocked, so I obliged him. This seems to be Abecedare's main complaint; that I continued posting about the "nonsense" after an admin had discouraged me not to. But I had been asked by one of my accusers to clarify this "nonsense". So if I reiterated my "nonsense" defense, I was at risk of being blocked by an admin (though this was not made clear to me until after I had been blocked, which is itself objectionable). But if I refused the request for me to clarify my "nonsense" defense, I was also at risk of being blocked (which was my main concern, as it had been made clear to me by several of my accusers that this was the case). Either way, I was at risk of being blocked. This is obviously a Catch 22. Either way, I would be blocked, which I believe may have been the point: I could not be blocked for socking, because it was clear that I hadn't, so I was blocked on a technicality. Harry Sibelius (talk) 07:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Essentially, the two main requirements for a successful unblock request are (a) showing that you understand the reasons for the block and (b) indicating that you are not likely to do whatever led to the block again. In your case, both in this unblock request and in your other posts on this page, (a) you have shown unambiguously that you don't understand the reasons for the block, as you keep claiming that it for reasons that the blocking administrator has pointed out are not the case, and (b) you have not merely shown that you are likely to do again the things that led to the block, but you have actually done them, over and over again, on this page, during the block. JBW (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2023 (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.

Harry, you seem to assume that users are admins almost as your default, as with User:Nythar above. They're not an admin, nor are Beyond My Ken or De Causa.[6] If you want to find out who is an admin, you can check this list. Or else check the individual's userpage, where they will normally mention any advanced permissions. Bishonen | tålk 13:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you. I actually had no idea that Nythar wasn't an admin, though I know the other two aren't. Harry Sibelius (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HS, that long unblock request is unlikely to do it. I'd suggest you read WP:GAB and respond as briefly as possible to the reason you were blocked: "WP:tendentious, WP:battleground and WP:IDHT".
What an admin responding to an unblock request is looking for is:
You understand why you were blocked

You understand what is needed to stop doing it

You sincerely agree to stop doing it
And that is all. Nothing about other users, for instance. And preferably short and comprehensible; literally I could not even figure out what your unblock request above is even saying, except that this is everyone else's fault/misunderstanding/bad faith. That is not going to work in an unblock request. Seriously, really read the advice at that link. Read the pages linked to the block reason. If you don't, you're unlikely to be unblocked. Valereee (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice, but that is exactly what I am saying: that it is a mistake, which, according to the page you linked me to, is a valid defense: "It is not enough if you just say that the block was "wrong" or "unfair", or another user violated a policy first. You must explain why it was wrong to block you, or why it should be reversed ... If a mistake has happened, show actual evidence or explain it (briefly)." I seem to have fallen short of the parenthetical, but this passage suggests that I don't actually have to concede the validity of any accusation against me in order to get unblocked.

As for responding to @Abecedare's claims, he only provided one specific example of the behavior he was alleging that I had committed. I've read the relevant sections of the pages linked to me, and I don't see how any of my edits fall under those categories, including the only activity that he had cited specifically. I did my best in my appeal to rebut the sole accusation that he had given evidence for, but perhaps I was overly prolix. What aspects of my argument could I better clarify? Harry Sibelius (talk) 11:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is an example of both IDHT and battleground. But I'll try one more time.

A "mistake" is something like "I think the blocking admin thought it was me making that horrible personal attack, but it was actually just me quoting someone else". "Wrong" is something like "The blocking admin misread the edit history, I'd only reverted twice." An admin coming to a conclusion you disagree with is not a mistake or wrong. It is just something that in your opinion wasn't the conclusion you thought they should have come to.

You can continue to argue, but my advice is good: you are unlikely to be unblocked with a request that focusses on arguing all the reasons this isn't fair instead of realizing that the reason for the block is all the arguing you're doing in basically every discussion you've been having since this whole thing started. Valereee (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually appreciate you for your honesty--you are probably right that I won't get unblocked, or that if I do, I would probably just get blocked again very soon afterward, under similar circumstances. But this would probably be the case even if I were to "admit" to my behavior or try to suck-up, so I might as well be honest.

""Wrong" is something like "The blocking admin misread the edit history, I'd only reverted twice." ... An admin coming to a conclusion you disagree with is not a mistake or wrong. It is just something that in your opinion wasn't the conclusion you thought they should have come to." This is tautological, on many levels: obviously, a "misreading of my edit history" would be a "conclusion that I disagree with", so there's no real difference between the two scenarios you've posited other than the words that you used to describe them. It's tautological on another level, because obviously, in my opinion, I think I am right, which would make the admin wrong. Is this a somewhat opaque way of saying that the blocking admin is always right? That's obviously not true, because I've seen admins admit that they may have been wrong before about blocks.

If you want me to be as brief as I can reasonably be, my argument for why I should be unblocked is that I was blocked for arguing, in particular, for arguing in my defense during an SPI investigation into myself, during which I had been asked to argue my case. If you or the blocking admin think this portrayal of events is a misunderstanding on my part, I'll be happy to hear why, but I don't see how it is a hard argument to follow. Harry Sibelius (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note for the reviewing admin: Please see too my responses to Harry Sibelius' queries about the block in the previous section. My (TL;DR) is that the problems that led to the block have continued after the block. Abecedare (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

Hi. I'm appealing my block for WP:TE, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDHT. I don't think the evidence bears out that analysis. Thanks for you time. Harry Sibelius (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm afraid that I do. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:24, 28 May 2023 (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.

Harry Sibelius (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to imagine a more convincing confirmation of WP:IDHT than that unblock request. JBW (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about:

I was blocked by @Abecedare for how I conducted myself during an SPI investigation, in which I was accused of operating sock and/or meetpuppets. I believe that the SPI was retributive in nature, due to continuous disagreements between myself and a small group of editors, who had already unsuccessfully accused me of using socks in the past. In this second attempt, it was still not concluded that I had I used any socks, but I ended up indeffed all the same. You can read Abecedare's full complaint on my page, but the only action of mine that he specifically cited was this post. He alleged that I had been given specific instructions by @Bishonen not to engage in "long, redundant and argumentative postings". This is a stretch; what Bishonen said was: "You are not a clerk, CheckUser or patrolling admin, Harry, so please don't post in this section, especially not nonsense like your second post there. You've said it all above already, and repeating it here doesn't make it any more logical. The "nonsense", as Bishonen refers to it, is probably what Abecedare meant by "long, redundant and argumentative postings". This is obviously an incredibly creative reading of Bishonen's warning, which I don't grant at all, as her post clearly refers to a very specific argument of mine, but for the sake of argument, I will proceed as if it were valid. The "nonsense" post of mine that Bishonen asked me not to reiterate was a defense I had made against accusations by another user, who had been continually pestering me for "evidence" that I hadn't socked. The "nonsense" was, I believe, a very good rebuttal to his accusations, and I stand by it. I won't reiterate the dispute here, as it's immaterial to my block, but it's all in the SPI archive. After Bishonen discouraged me from repeating this defense, @Nythar, one of the users who was arguing in favor of the idea that I had socked, asked me to further elaborate on the "nonsense". I had been encouraged many times to offer "evidence" in my favor during the SPI, under penalty of being blocked, so I obliged him. This seems to be Abecedare's main complaint; that I continued posting about the "nonsense" after an admin had discouraged me not to. But I had been asked by one of my accusers to clarify this "nonsense". So if I reiterated my "nonsense" defense, I was at risk of being blocked by an admin (though this was not made clear to me until after I had been blocked, which is itself objectionable). But if I refused the request for me to clarify my "nonsense" defense, I was also at risk of being blocked (which was my main concern, as it had been made clear to me by several of my accusers that this was the case). Either way, I was at risk of being blocked. This is obviously a Catch 22. Either way, I would be blocked, which I believe may have been the point: I could not be blocked for socking, because it was clear that I hadn't, so I was blocked on a technicality.

is that more convincing of "IDHT?"

Obviously, if I admit to what I'm accused of, I will remain blocked, and if I don't, I will also remain blocked. So I might a well just tell the truth. Harry Sibelius (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect; I did not "[argue] in favor of the idea that [you] had socked"; I simply observed similar editing behavior that an IP and yourself engaged in, and I asked for clarification. I later stated "I presented to you some of the evidence and you denied any allegations, and just so you know, I'm not asserting anything." Nythar (💬-🍀) 06:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I grant your claims of neutrality, but you did present arguments in favor of the idea I had socked, which is how I define arguing. I asked you Why would I wait to use a sockpuppet until after I had already been unblocked? Wouldn't it make more sense to use the sockpuppet during my block? Or would I create the sockpuppets after I had been unblocked exactly because it would be so much more unlikely?' But then what reason would be left for me to do it at all, other than get an SPI opened on me? Seems like I wouldn't gain much. You responded: It is possible that you're one step ahead and already thought of that before you made those edits. While I grant that you did not assert that I had socked, you did provide arguments in favor of the idea, so I don't think I've misrepresented anything. Harry Sibelius (talk) 06:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summaries both yourself and the IPs used as well as the contents of your edits do match. I presented that evidence because it's possible that those diffs indicated socking. However, it's also possible that a random person decided to use multiple IPs to make the same changes you made with the same edit summaries (perhaps the IPs were trolling). That is why I didn't assert that you used sockpuppets. This doesn't mean I didn't point out the fact that those edits were suspiciously similar. Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you're alleging is demonstrably false. I'm looking over these pages, and I'm not seeing any "socks" that used the same edit-summaries that I did. Either you're mistaken, or you're lying.

I don't really understand why pointing out demonstrably untrue accusations like the above is lifetime ban-worthy behavior, but I've also been told that my failure to understand that is a sign in itself that I should stay banned. If I'd actually read much Kafka, I'd call it Kafkaesque, but since I haven't that would be ostentatious. Harry Sibelius (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To anyone reading this, I presented the evidence here. Still, I am not asserting that you are a sockpuppet, and you are displaying the same WP:IDHT behavior that led to your block in the first place. Nythar (💬-🍀) 22:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those literally aren't the same edit-summaries. That is demonstrable. Anyone can read them, and see that they are not. I am trying to assume good-faith, but it is difficult when you are using such specious arguments. Harry Sibelius (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere did I say the edit summaries were the same, and I am not "arguing" in favor of anything. But you nonetheless are convinced that I am arguing in favor of your block, even though I have clarified that I am not. I'm done here. Good day to you. Nythar (💬-🍀) 23:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Nowhere did I say the edit summaries were the same"-@Nythar

Is this nowhere?:

"The edit summaries both yourself and the IPs used as well as the contents of your edits do match. I presented that evidence because it's possible that those diffs indicated socking. However, it's also possible that a random person decided to use multiple IPs to make the same changes you made with the same edit summaries"-@Nythar

Good day to you, too. Harry Sibelius (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your abuse of this talk page

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Because you are abusing this talk page, I have requested that your talk page access (TPA) be revoked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

Hi. I'm appealing my block again. I was blocked for arguing; in particular for arguing in favor of my own defense during an SPI into myself. I was not blocked for socking; I have never been found to have used socks, and, interestingly, after my account was blocked, all attempts to investigate my "socking" ceased. The only reason I can imagine why is that the point was never to get me to stop "socking"; it was to get me to stop editing, because I was often engaged in disputes with other users over "contentious topics". I've actually gone to some lengths to try to follow the guidelines here; it's obviously somewhat impossible to follow them all simultaneously, as they can contradict each other, but I've tried to do so nonetheless. I think I've followed WP:BOLD, but blocking admin @Abecedare calls it "long, redundant and argumentative posting". I think I've only rarely been "redundant", usually when asked to further explain myself by other users. I also don't think it's fair to accuse me of being "argumentative", considering that I've been warned by other users that if I were to refuse to argue, I would be blocked. I don't understand why these are blockworthy offenses. I have been verbose, which I'm not sure is strictly against the rules, though it might be annoying to some. I don't have to write such long posts, but it often seems like the best way to make sure that I am not misunderstood. Obviously, this unblock request will probably be accused of being "redundant", because it's my third; it will probably also be accused of being "argumentative", since I'm arguing against my block. It's much shorter than my first request, so hopefully it won't be called "long"; I could make it even shorter, but I already tried a 23-word unblock request, and that seemed to get a less serious response than the 526-word one. Harry Sibelius (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You seem to be saying your only options are the extremes, and that's not true. You can't seem to find a happy medium between "refusing to argue" and "arguing". You don't need to argue, you need to discuss. This request does not convince me that the problematic behavior will not resume, so I am declining it. 331dot (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2023 (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.

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

I've been told by @331dot, who's upheld my block, that I've been blocked for "arguing" with other users, instead of "discussing" things with them. I'm not really sure what, given the context in which I was blocked, the difference between the two would have been. Since I was put into a position in which I was accused of something I had not done, and had been asked to provide evidence that I hadn't done it, I don't really know how I could've possibly "discussed" the accusations without "arguing" against them. I've asked the the original blocker, @Abecedare, what he would've done in my shoes, but he refused to answer, which of course only reinforces the impression that I didn't do anything wrong. Harry Sibelius (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We don't seem to be making any progress here. To be unblocked, you need to demonstrate that you understand why you were blocked and know how to follow our rules. However, this unblock request does the opposite. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2023 (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 for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.