Jump to content

User talk:Harry Sibelius

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Doug Weller (talk | contribs) at 09:22, 12 April 2023 (→‎Off-wiki WP:CANVASSING?: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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]


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]

Information icon 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

Information icon 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

Warning icon 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]

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Harry_Sibelius&oldid=1149449147"