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)
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:
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)
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).
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.
soibangla ( talk) 21:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
please stop soibangla ( talk) 01:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
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)
Doug Weller talk 21:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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.
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)
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)
This is the lede, where citations are not required. Evidecne in the body of the article is sufficient to support this statement".
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).
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).
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)
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)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Abecedare (
talk) 18:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)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."
long, redundant and argumentative postingson 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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
"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.
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)
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)
Decline reason:
I'm afraid that I do. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Harry Sibelius ( talk) 03:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
It's difficult to imagine a more convincing confirmation of WP:IDHT than that unblock request. JBW ( talk) 14:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
"[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)
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)
"Nowhere did I say the edit summaries were the same
"-@
Nythar
"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
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
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)
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)
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 ( 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)
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)
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.
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
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)
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:
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)
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).
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.
soibangla ( talk) 21:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
please stop soibangla ( talk) 01:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
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)
Doug Weller talk 21:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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.
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)
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)
This is the lede, where citations are not required. Evidecne in the body of the article is sufficient to support this statement".
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).
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).
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)
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)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Abecedare (
talk) 18:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)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."
long, redundant and argumentative postingson 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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
"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.
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)
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)
Decline reason:
I'm afraid that I do. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Harry Sibelius ( talk) 03:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
It's difficult to imagine a more convincing confirmation of WP:IDHT than that unblock request. JBW ( talk) 14:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
"[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)
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)
"Nowhere did I say the edit summaries were the same
"-@
Nythar
"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
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
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)
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)
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 ( 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)
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)
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.
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))