User talk:Bubba6t3411

Welcome!

Hi Bubba6t3411! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Jay8g [V•T•E] 21:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spanih Empire

In this edit [1] you would state: If you were so vehemently against diachronic maps, you would've weighed in at other empires' articles already. So I doubt you actually are. This can be seen as an allegation of bad faith. I do not watch pages other that have been listed in the subject discussion and I have no particular interest in them. We are told to WP:FOC and not personalise discussions. I would suggest that you strike that part of tour comment. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, apologies for the bad faith assumption. I have struck the text. Bubba6t3411 (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Archiepo per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Archiepo. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Girth Summit _(blether) 01:58, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit Can you check your email? I sent you a response on the 28th since I couldn't reply on the investigation page (or if you prefer I can also just paste it here). While we're on the topic, I'd also like to furthermore add to my point the fact that David is just once again throwing another accusation of sock puppetry against me in Talk:Spanish Empire (he's now saying another "nameless" IP user is me). You might want to give that one a check too. Bubba6t3411 (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit Hello? Bubba6t3411 (talk) 11:17, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't tend to read emails from accounts that I've blocked. The instructions for appealing your block are in the block notice. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:45, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Bubba6t3411 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello,

I've been suspected of being a sockpuppet because I have similar interests to another person. I.e. "editing habits" just because I've edited some articles Archiepo and many other users have? Looking at their account history, it shows that they've edited in many other articles different from those I am interested in. For instance, the user seems to have an interest in Dutch military history whilst I do not. I'm also interested in other historical eras which the other user doesn't show any interest in either when looking at their edit history (English Civil War for example). Shared interest in Spanish military history—an extremely broad topic—cannot reasonably be the basis for such a rapid conclusion. Please read WP:ECA.

It’s worth noting that this accusation was raised months before by DavidDiijkgraaf. They were promptly shoved aside. The timing of these renewed accusations appears to coincide with my recent edits on articles he changed, which raises concern that the allegations may simply be retaliatory rather than evidence-based.

Update: To further add to the previous point, he is now saying a nameless IP user is me in Talk:Spanish Empire, so you might want to take a look at that.

I’ve already addressed this on Talk:Franco-Spanish War (1635–1659), where I explained that I’m not biased toward Spain—or any country—and that I’m not a sockpuppet. If you check that discussion, you’ll see there were disagreements about how to interpret the sources and what should stay in the article, but my edits were always backed up with reliable citations and aimed at making the article more accurate.

In the talk page, I've clearly addressed the accusation DavidDiijkgraaf pointed out whilst responding to a user I was debating with:

"And no I'm not, nothing I've added or said correlated with being favorable to Spain. I've provided the exact sources and evidence for everything mentioned - which I might even add, everybody else has sparsely done so - and you also kept trying to change what Bodart states, and still do, and now you're doing the same with Clodfelter too. Rather, if anything, it seems more like you're biased for France. Either that or you somehow 'misread' my responses/the sources twice."

DavidDiijkgraaf’s primary claim appears to be that I am related to another account because my edits show “leniency” toward Spain. This is not accurate. In the article he references, I was not the original user who added the Spanish figures to the infobox, nor the one who inflated the French figures to one million. My contribution was to correct that figure, replacing it with Clodfelter’s figure of approximately 500,000—a change that improved accuracy and cannot reasonably be considered favorable to Spain. I am simply a fact-checker and vehemently oppose the spreading of misinformation biased against a certain nation. Going through my edit history would've made that rather clear.

Best regards, Bubba6t3411 (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

While we are treating you as a different person from Archiepo, I am reminding you that you should be on your best behavior. Other editors might not give you the patience you might expect. Please adjust your approach to long discussions and RFCs to be as collegial as possible. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:08, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are addressing the blocking admin, but unblock requests are to ask for a third party to review the block. If you want to negotiate with the blocking admin first, you don't need to make an unblock request. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot I've updated it to not address him, can you review it? Bubba6t3411 (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it will be me, due to other activities, but it will be reviewed. 331dot (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Hi @Bubba6t3411, just to let you know, there is a backlog of unblock requests so please be patient as it might take an admin a little while to take a look at your request. Feel free to add anything else you feel might be helpful in comments before, but bear in mind there's already a lot to read & they're all volunteers.

Sockpuppet issues are pretty complex, so that might also mean things take a little longer than usual, but I can see your request is in the queue so it will definitely get reviewed by a new admin. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Er, @Girth Summit, are you sure? I'm seeing totally different geolocations. -- asilvering (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

asilvering - I'll email you. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:46, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For CUs: I wrote up some notes.

For unblocks admins:

The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: "signs point to yes". Behavioural is up to you. -- asilvering (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight, I don't think that's fair. We shouldn't be declining unblock requests simply because no admin has taken the time to examine them fully. -- asilvering (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone my decline, but I think you are giving false hope. I think they would be better off knowing their next step is the standard offer. PhilKnight (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering I still think it is very obvious that this is a sockpuppet, but if it can't be proven so be it. I won't pursue it again without good reason, but before I let it go, has this IP adress been checked though [2] This IP suddenly enaged on Bubba's behalf on the talk page of the Spanish Empire. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't comment on IP addresses. -- asilvering (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering Should I start another checkuser? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Checkusers will not connect IP addresses to named accounts. -- asilvering (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't me either way, but I don't have a problem with you confirming to David that the IP user doesn't have the same IP as me - if that leads to him no longer making bad-faithed false accusations like there's no tomorrow. Bubba6t3411 (talk) 08:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David will need to either stop making those accusations, or file an SPI alleging them with clear evidence. -- asilvering (talk) 08:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I have some time I will look into how file an SPI. Until then I won't make accusations. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 09:30, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]