Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harry Sibelius/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
Harry Sibelius made multiple edits to William Quantrill which were in the nature of whitewashing this Civil War terrorist's actions, including removing the description of him as a "mass murderer". (Quantrill was a deserter at the time of the killings in question, and therefore not a part of the Confederate Army.), These edits were reverted by myself and User:WikiCleanerMan. Because of these edits, and similar ones to other related pages, Harry Sibelius was blocked by User:Bishonen. Upon request, and after consideration, Bishonen un-blocked them. Just now, an IP editor, 75.102.131.210, made the same sort of edits to the article. ,. I suspect that Harry Sibelius may have used an IP to make these edits, because if they made them using their account, they would possibly be re-blocked. If so, this would be sockpuppetry to avoid scrutiny. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Why would I wait to use a sockpuppet until after I was already unblocked? Wouldn't it make more sense to use the sockpuppet while I was blocked? Or would I create the sockpuppets after I had been unblocked exactly because it would be so much more unlikely? How brilliant of me. But then what reason would be left for me to do it at all?
 * Oh, of course: to bother you, personally. That's my sole purpose here, BMK. I have no interest in the American Civil War, or Leo Frank, or Ziegfield Follies. I must be quite the wee bampot. Every time I use the word "source" in your presence, you seem to open up a sockpuppet investigation on me. Every time, seeing the rising tide of consensus overtake you, you must ask yourself, "Could I really have been wrong this time around?" And every time, the answer is, "No, they're socks." It didn't work before, and hopefully it won't work this time, either. Harry Sibelius (talk) 06:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * It appears to me that Harry Sibelius' comments here are all in the nature of personal attacks and reiterations of content disputes, all of which might make them feel better, but none of which are relevant to the question of whether they have socked or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What were these "personal attacks?" Harry Sibelius (talk) 08:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel certain that admins can see them clearly, I feel no need to point them out to you, who made them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright. As you didn't notify me about this SPI, or the last one you opened, did you notify the "socks?"
 * @166.199.114.19, @166.199.114.30, @166.199.7.5, @75.102.131.210 Harry Sibelius (talk) 08:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope. As I told you on your talk page, there is no requirement to notify users of an SPI report, for reasons which might become apparent with a little thought. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * This report was filed to initiate an investigation of whether or not you have been socking. To this end I have presented evidence which seems to indicate that you have.  This evidence is to be evaluated by an admin (in fact, one admin already warned you on your talk page not to edit while logged out, which I take to mean that they thought it was quite possible that one of the IPs  -- at least -- was you, but AGF'd and gave you the benefit of the doubt that you did so accidentally).Your role here should be to present evidence which goes towards showing that you didn't sock, so it can be used by them in their evaluation.  Personally attacking other editors and reiterating previous content disputes have no bearing on the matter, and only serve to show you, personally, in a bad light.  It may even cause an admin to think that perhaps you're being so slippery about this because you did sock, and very much wish to avoid a sanction -- I don't know.At this point, the report is old enough that it's probable that it won't go any farther than it already has, so it's probably to your advantage to stop your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and let the thing play out however it does.  Certainly, continuing to attack and vilify other editors isn't going to help your case very much, in my opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure exactly what you think that your evidence is. That there are other users who agree with me and disagree with you? That seemed to be the case you made last time, as well. But saying so casts me in a very baaad light, doesn't it? I suppose, if I wanted to be cast in a good light, I would agree with you that I was a sockmaster, right.
 * As for disproving your "evidence", I don't photograph myself outside of a bank every time that I post, so that will be difficult. How would you recommend that I falsify your claim? Better yet, how is your claim falsifiable? Harry Sibelius (talk) 05:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

He also had been editing under this IP, 70.54.43.112, whom I mentioned to Bishonen on her talk page. He mentioned me on the talk page of the article, Third Party System which I reverted because it was clear this was not meant to build on here. This was the edit on the article I reverted. So why would this account make mention of an IP's edit? It's clear Harry Sibelius is not here to build. His edits are disruptive and so both IP's have been used to add the same nature of edits from his main account to the IP's to subvert editing policies. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you defend anything you just said? You changed the wording of a sentence to something that I found unlikely to be in the source-material, which was a book published in 1988 by Foner. You obviously shouldn't be interpreting sources on Wikipedia that you haven't actually read. So, assuming good faith, I asked you if you could tell me what page in that book supported your interpretation. Rather than replying, you deleted the topic, as you have done every single time I have attempted to engage you about your frequent use of unsourced material.
 * You will probably attempt to delete this comment, too, as you seem to have a fear of engaging with me. Harry Sibelius (talk) 07:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * PA's is all you do and I have responded at your frivolous ANI report against me where there has been no evidence provided of editing violations just the same battlegrounding you have been doing on these articles, talk pages, and now on two report pages. You have not provided any evidence that you haven't socked and have not addressed the same editing patterns by your account and these IP's. And "building a case" isn't a violations as you're making it out to be. I have provided evidence as has Ken. Actually address the accusations against you. Abecedare and Bishonen, either one of you should ask HS directly to provide evidence hasn't done the things he is accused of and both have you have doubts about this user's answers and conduct to engage. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * How would you recommend that I falsify your claim? How is your claim falsifiable?
 * I obviously never implied that opening up an SPI was any sort of violation, but thought it was relevant that you were involved in a complaint against me when opening up a complaint against you.
 * You ask: "So why would this account make mention of an IP's edit?" I'm not sure exactly what that means, but I am guessing you are trying to ask why, when I took issue with one of your edits in the talk-page, another user reverted the same edit that I had mentioned. Is that what you're asking? Harry Sibelius (talk) 05:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

166.199.7.5 just did the same sort of edit on William Quantrill. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Beyond My Ken, please add 70.54.43.112 and the new IP 166.199.114.19 to this list. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 166.199.114.30 is the newer IP with a similar edit summary as the other 166 one. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The user account Vickycatorz should possibly be considered his other sockpuppet since it was created the day of the Leo Frank article dispute. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong, but I believe this was checked and found not to be a sockpuppet of HS, although some suspicions were expressed of WP:MEATPUPPETry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Have any of the six other accounts you've accused of being me turned out to be sockpuppets? Harry Sibelius (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * IPs cannot be connected to accounts, so we can't know that. This does not, however, resolve the sockpuppetry concerns. Your edits and the IP edits are nearly identical, although we can't be certain of any connection. — Nythar  (💬-🍀) 07:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * How so? Harry Sibelius (talk) 07:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to IP-account connection or the sockpuppetry allegations? — Nythar  (💬-🍀) 07:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What are the similarities between our edits? Harry Sibelius (talk) 07:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Harry Sibelius: For starters, there's this edit where you removed a mention of William Quantrill being a mass murderer, along with a category. An IP later made the exact same edit. That is the first sign of suspicious editing behavior. The second sign can be seen with your edit summaries, where you wrote, "Try a source next time, and start a conversation in the talk page if you disagree." and "You still need a source."; an IP later stated "no source citing it" and another stated "no citing on your part - sorry". The timing between your edits and the IP edits (being only a week apart) along with the nearly identical pattern of editing renders the suspicions well-founded. Of course, it is possible that there is no connection between you and the IPs; however, WP:DUCK states — Nythar  (💬-🍀) 07:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It could be that we both that more than one person would like @Beyond My Ken, @WikiCleanerMan, and @XXzoonamiXX to provide sources for their unsourced additions. So far, they have refused to even discuss their unsourced additions on the talk-page, though they did not neglect to open an SPI on me, without notifying me, I might add.
 * More obviously: 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.''' Harry Sibelius (talk) 08:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

It is possible that you're one step ahead and already thought of that before you made those edits. Either way, you did not respond to any of my points. You shouldn't just deflect the suspicions onto other editors at SPI. Nythar (💬-🍀) 08:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I did respond to your points, but I will try to be more clear. In my worldview, it is possible for me to imagine that people who are not me might agree that "mass-murderer" is not currently a well-sourced description of William Clarke Quantrill. In yours, as well as some of the other editors, it seems impossible to believe that.
 * Aside from the the fact that there are other users that agree with me on this subject, do you have any other evidence that I'm operating socks? With just as much evidence I could say that you and @Beyond My Ken, and @WikiCleanerMan are all the same user, because you all agree that I have seven socks or something. Harry Sibelius (talk) 08:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This highlights the importance of solid evidence. No, you shouldn't accuse us of being operated by the same person because you think we "agree" on something for which evidence exists. Anyway, I have nothing more to add to this page. I presented to you some of the evidence and you denied any allegations, and just so you know, I'm not asserting anything. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 09:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

"Sure. I did not make any of the edits that I have been accused of making here." Once again, there is no evidence presented by the accused that they didn't sock. This is going on for too long. It's clear they don't have evidence to disprove the allegations and are doing this BG and diversion to avoid addressing the actual matter at hand. This is clearly a lifetime block-warranted behavior. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @WikiCleanerMan, you seem not to have read Bishonen's request: she did not ask me for any evidence, just whether I did it or not. Harry Sibelius (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Once again. You are the accused. Provide evidence. And you only respond to not address the very issue against you, but only to deflect and do whataboutism. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As I have asked you before, what possible way could I defend myself against a virtually non-falsifiable allegation? I would have to have video-footage of myself at the time of those edits doing something else, would I not?
 * Saying things like, "Once again. You are the accused. Provide evidence." might make you feel like you're a high-powered prosecutor with a hostile witness on the stand in Law and Order or something, but at the end of the day you're just a guy on his computer. Harry Sibelius (talk) 01:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * From the nonsensical ANI thread against me, "he has done so on articles that have not even been edited by any of the alleged sock accounts anyway." They actually have been editing on those articles. The pattern is identical. Abecedare and Bishonen, it's clear HS is not going to provide evidence contrary to the accusations because they don't have any. And we should just close this with this being an obvious case of violating editing policy, and all he has done is just go on a PA and distraction binge. Just look at this recent statement. "Law & Order" Consultation (1992) Keith Szarabajka as Harry Sibelius might be the inspiration for your user name and yet unlike on Law and Order, the accused has not provided a single shred of evidence in his defense. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the article I was referring to, where you reverted my edits because you said I was a sockmaster. You accused me of using socks to edit the article. But only two users have edited it this year: Harry Sibelius, and WikiCleanerMan. By your logic, you must be saying that you yourself are one of my socks. What evidence do you have to disprove this?
 * I am honestly flattered and somewhat impressed that you went to the trouble of making that connection, though it's actually purely coincidental. I got the name from somewhere else entirely. I will, however, be watching that episode the next chance I get. Harry Sibelius (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's from Nazi Literature in the Americas. Makes sense of your BG on far-right topics. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Very good. Now I am really impressed.
 * But back to your other claim. You have been asking me to provide evidence that I am not a sock, so here it is:
 * You claim that my socks were editing Samuel Bierfield. But the only other editor editing Samuel Bierfield is you. So, if you are telling the truth, my sockpuppet would have to be you. If you're not my sock, then I caught you in a lie. Which is it?
 * You've created quite the Catch 22 for yourself. Harry Sibelius (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Beyond My Ken, is the other editor. The only Catch 22 is you and that's not how socking works. All you've done is create a hole for yourself with your own behavior. It's your edits that caused this report in the first place. What do you say, Ken? Harry was never here to build. One week of this and he hasn't proven he didn't sock. Now he claims that we're socks. HS continues to avoid the actual matter at hand which is about him and not anyone else. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You just said that you were my sockpuppet:
 * "From the nonsensical ANI thread against me, "he has done so on articles that have not even been edited by any of the alleged sock accounts anyway." They actually have been editing on those articles."-WikiCleanerMan
 * This is one of the articles that you are claiming I used socks on, but the only other editor making edits at the time that you accused me was you, so the only user who you could possibly be accusing of being my sockpuppet would be you yourself. If this is wrong, then what other editor on Samuel Bierfield are you accusing of being my sock? Beyond My Ken just made his first edit to that article, so I didn't think you were also implying that he was my sock, too, unless you are now.
 * If this isn't true, then you lied when you said that I used socks on Samuel Bierfield when you knew that I was innocent. If it is true, you are my sockpuppet, and by your own words, you deserve a "lifetime block." Which is it?
 * I don't think you know what a Catch 22 is. Harry Sibelius (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not. Those accounts were edited by you. "They actually have been editing on those articles." The former is of your claim that you haven't been doing so on the articles of dispute. At ANI you couldn't make out what that meant. You're just cherrypicking and thinking that edit history of yours and the IP's can't be deciphered as being exactly the same on the William Quantrill article for instance. Your edit and the first one of the IP's. Exactly the same. There are no coincidences when it comes to editing on here. You keep digging yourself into a permanent ban on here. You can't provide any evidence that you haven't violated the policy on editing and you can't even do that when multiple editors including admins have asked you to provide. Even one of the admins here have asked you to stop playing games and made mention that you are evading directly responding. It's becoming clear you were never on here to build and improve Wikipedia but rather violate NPOV by making edits to skew to a certain ideological viewpoint. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "You're just cherrypicking and thinking that edit history of yours and the IP's can't be deciphered as being exactly the same on the William Quantrill article for instance. Your edit and the first one of the IP's. Exactly the same. There are no coincidences when it comes to editing on here."
 * That's called a revert. That's why it looks the same. You and BMK have done it to my edits, many, many times, and I have never opened up an SPI on either of you. And it's not even really the same, because our edit-summaries are different. It's similar to how you often revert my edits, with a sort of mangled use of English in your edit-summaries, and without sources backing you up, and BMK backs you up, with more competent English, and sometimes with sources. Harry Sibelius (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No. It's not the same when it's a revert. Once again you're now sidetracking instead of accepting responsibility for your behavior. Because all those who revert you and those IP's were all socks. Even the admin, Abecedare, was a sock. Because that's how socking works. It doesn't. You probably have never read what sockpuppetry is. You never provided sources for your changes on Quantrill to begin when you were told there were in the body of the article as opposed to the lead. But you decided to sock with IP's with the same reverting pattern for the lead sentence. So just stop your nonsense. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Every time you perform a revert, that another user has previously reverted as well, do you change it very slightly so that you can't be accused of socking? Is that what you're saying this IP editor should have done when he re-enforced my revert, as a courtesy to avoid casting suspicion on himself of being me?
 * As far as I know, sockpuppetting is using more than one account at the same time. Am I correct?
 * I didn't need to provide a source because I didn't change anything. The onus is on you to provide sources for new material. @Beyond My Ken said they were already in the body of the article, so I asked if he could tell me what they were. He wouldn't. After opening up an ANI and an SPI on me, he finally added sources for his changes, though I will note that none of them were sources that were already in the body of the article, so it proves that line was lie the whole time. Harry Sibelius (talk) 05:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Where did WikiCleanerMan say you used socks to edit the article Samuel Bierfield? I was under the impression that they suspected you were a sockmaster due to the IP edits to the page William Quantrill that we discussed above. WikiCleanerMan didn't claim you used socks to edit Samuel Bierfield, right? Nythar  (💬-🍀) 02:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * On my ANI thread for WikiCleanerMan, I complained to him that he had once reverted my edits and left the edit-summary "revert sockmaster" when doing so, even though the socks that I had been accused of creating have never edited on that page. That article would be Samuel Bierfield. He replied, here on my SPI page, "From the nonsensical ANI thread against me [WikiCleanerMan] "he has done so [reverted edits] on articles that have not even been edited by any of the alleged sock accounts anyway." They actually have been editing on those articles. The pattern is identical." Not only did he type "revert sockmaster" when he reverted my edits on Samuel Bierfield, but if you look at the ANI topic for WikiCleanerMan, you will see that I linked the Samuel Bierfield edit-history to him several times, and he still insisted that I had edited it with socks. Harry Sibelius (talk) 05:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Harry Sibelius, I am not able to locate a single diff that suggests WikiCleanerMan claimed you used socks to edit Samuel Bierfield. Please present at least one diff where he categorically states that you edited that page using sockpuppets. An edit summary of "revert sockmaster" doesn't mean he suggested that; you see, we normally revert edits if they were made by sockmasters, probably because they were WP:NOTHERE and we shouldn't have to keep their edits if they were socking. If you are indeed a sockmaster, most (if not all) of your edits may be acceptably reverted; that is probably why WikiCleanerMan said "revert sockmaster", not necessarily because any socks edited the page. — Nythar  (💬-🍀) 06:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be the diff. You don't need to take my word for it that that's what he meant by it; take his word for it. He insisted that I had been editing with socks on all of those pages. He didn't go back on that interpretation until I explained to him that he was the only other user who was editing the page. Harry Sibelius (talk) 06:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * He's cherry picking without providing any evidence when another editor has called for edit diff and yet he won't provide one. I never said HS was socking on the Samuel Bierfield. And I never said the article he's talking about directly. He is lying and playing the victim because that is what those who have been caught do. He was socking on Quantrill's article and therefore reverting meant he was a sockmaster who was making disruptive changes across Wikipedia. He wants sources when changes of his have been reverted on articles of dispute yet doesn't do so himself putting blame on others when they revert the unsourced changes to begin with. He can't answer why his defending this disruptive and NPOV violation edit by an IP on Third Party System and yet hasn't made what he can call an improvement backed by sources. He demands sources from everyone else and yet can't assert onus when he makes the changes. Let's not forgot HS was defending a user who was being anti-Semitic on the Leo Frank article posting on their talk page and making the same changes of the short description before he ultimately stopped. Nor does his comment on BMK's talk page help him either. MarioGom, you're the check user in this case and have made only one comment. It's clear HS has violated editing policy. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I would suggest requesting temporary semi-protection of William Quantrill at WP:RFPP. MarioGom (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Responding to a parallel ANI thread, I semi-protected page for a week and warned for apparent logged-out editing at William Quantrill. Pinging  to decide if this behavior combined with similar apparent logged-out editing by  back in January 2023, and all the other warnings Sibelius has received warrants further sanction. Abecedare (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I hope another admin, for example yourself, evaluates this, Abecedare. I don't think I'm well placed to sanction HS; see their block log. Bishonen &#124; tålk 05:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC).


 * Harry, on reading through this SPI, I don't see you affirming or denying the allegations of sockpuppetry, but rather evading them with questions like "What are the similarities between our edits?", "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?", and "Do you have any other evidence that I'm operating socks?". Is this meant to imply you deny making the IP edits, or is it a game you play? Please state explicity whether you made the IP edits referred to in this report, or made some of them, or made none of them. Please avoid making further comments here before you reply to me. Bishonen &#124; tålk 14:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC).
 * Sure. I did not make any of the edits that I have been accused of making here. Harry Sibelius (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bishonen, @Abecedare, and @Nythar, I'm going to mention that WikiCleanerMan has alleged that I used socks when I edited the page for Samuel Bierfield. This is absurd, because when he made that accusation, WikiCleanerMan and I were the only accounts who had edited that article this year. The only user WikiCleanerMan could be accusing of being my sock would be WikiCleanerMan himself, because he was the only other account making edits on Samuel Bierfield at the same time that I was.
 * If WikiCleanerMan is not my sockpuppet, then he lied when he said I was using socks to edit Samuel Bierfield. If he is my sock, then, by his own logic, he deserves a "lifetime block", so it's sort of a Catch 22 for him. He could also just say that he didn't intentionally lie, but simply made a mistake when he accused me of using socks to edit Samuel Bierfield, but he's declined to admit even that much. Clearly, the answer is simply that he lied, which should throw his many other accusations against me under question as well. Harry Sibelius (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 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. Bishonen &#124; tålk 05:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC).
 * I see. Where would you like me to respond to you? Harry Sibelius (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In "Comments by other users". Bishonen &#124; tålk 06:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC).


 * I have blocked Harry Sibelius for tendentious, battleground and IDHT conduct that is visible even at this page. Note that I didn't make a call on whether or not the IPs were being used by Harry; other admins are welcome to act on that part if they wish, and therefore I am leaving this report open for now. Pinging as a heads up. Abecedare (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I'm not a checkuser, just a SPI clerk. Given that the user is currently indefinitely blocked, I don't think it's worth continuing the investigation on WP:LOUTSOCKING. Closing without further action. MarioGom (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)