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) • SI)

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]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ~2026-24149-67 (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

April 2026

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Franco-Spanish War (1635–1659)) for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree I'm not going to contest the partial block from editing the article, though I just wanted to give you context. The changes made revolved around the Aftermath and historical assessment section.

The version the unnamed user reverted to is not the stable version, and includes a violation of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and doesn't follow a technicality mentioned in WP:CONFLICTING.

Another user and I were having a debate and would first respond on the talk page before immediately implementing what was said. Looking back, I shouldn't have copied what the other user did and just leave the article and focus on the discussion on the talk page first. Nonetheless, if you consult the discussion, you'll see that this version[3] is a fix of the version[4] Robinvp11 edited before we started our debate. Though I'd suggest you simply restore it to the latest version before the unnamed user reverted ([5]), as it includes the fix in the Aftermath section and a correction made to territorial changes in the infobox (and has no violation of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, etc). Bubba6t3411 (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bubba6t3411, thanks for the context. I won't try to judge, all I'd like to make sure is that this is resolved through discussion (perhaps a third opinion or an RfC) instead of being the last person to make the edit. For the same reason, I'd like to avoid restoring any specific revision. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

May 2026

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Peninsular War. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} or use the unblock wizard. CoconutOctopus talk 18:37, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you are concurrently partially blocked for edit warring; I am being very lenient with the duration here. Please be very aware further edit warring is likely to result in a much longer if not permanent block. CoconutOctopus talk 18:38, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The other use also broke the 3 revert rule, why does he not get a block? Bubba6t3411 (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Because they were not currently already blocked for edit warring. You were. I issued a final warning and if he were to continue to edit war would also block them. CoconutOctopus talk 19:06, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, are admins supposed to read and get some context on what the users are arguing on before blocking or is it simply not required? Bubba6t3411 (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely irrelevant; even if you are correct, edit warring is disruptive and is not allowed (with very limited exceptions). CoconutOctopus talk 19:29, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What are the exceptions? Bubba6t3411 (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RRNO. Do note that even when exempt it is often better to not edit war and instead alert an admin to problematic behaviour such as vandalism or spam rather than continually reverting. CoconutOctopus talk 20:42, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RRNO says that you can revert vandalism. What the other user is doing is precisely that. WP:VANDTYPES: Hoaxing vandalism, Reverting to vandalism.

I'd also like to point out that I also reached out to another admin before you arrived to deal with it, though they said they preferred not to do this type of admin work unfortunately. Bubba6t3411 (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a classic edit conflict and not vandalism. CoconutOctopus talk 20:53, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue it is vandalism. According to WP:HOAX, he's committed WP:DBTF. Read this from the article talk page, I've already discussed it with him but he keeps making the same misleading edits. Bubba6t3411 (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is still not vandalism. Next time if you believe someone is vandalising then report them and just avoid an edit war even if you think it is covered by WP:3RRNO to be safe. CoconutOctopus talk 22:02, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VANDTYPES -> WP:HOAX -> WP:DBTF

Why would it not be vandalism if Wikipedia indicates such?

PS I was in the process of reporting him[6] right before you intervened. Bubba6t3411 (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bubba6t3411, I'll have a hopefully unbiased look. Please show me one single diff that was part of the situation (edit war or not) and I'll say if it's obvious vandalism of the type exempting reverts or not. It should be the kind of vandalism I look at and block for without having to think much. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @ToBeFree; after explaining to him on the TP[7] why he can't do what he's doing (breach of WP:NOR/WP:DBTF), he proceeds to make this edit[8] 6 times (notice how the sum doesn't even add up either). Bubba6t3411 (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not obvious vandalism. Two users disagree so far; obvious vandalism is defined as lacking such disagreement. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Even if he violated WP:DBTF? Bubba6t3411 (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's an essay. Please don't treat essays as policies. And only a fraction of all policy violations is done with malicious intent. If someone stubbornly, hoping to improve the encyclopedia, makes the same bad edit again and again, that's disruptive editing, not vandalism. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR is a policy, the essay WP:DBTF states it as being a variation.

I'd also argue his intent is quite obviously malicious too, a couple of minutes reading his talk page and edit history might give context to his end goal.

Anyhow, it's original research, the sum doesn't even add up and it's clearly a hoax contstrued with improper citation of the figures provided by the sources. Bubba6t3411 (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The essay could state being a variation of a NASA space shuttle pilot manual, whatever – I rarely even read essays. They're completely unimportant. WP:NOR is good for discussion, yes.

Malicious behavior can be reported, with evidence in form of diffs, at WP:ANI. But not even malice by itself is a justification for edit warring. For "obvious vandalism", we're talking about things like "the user replaced the content of the section with insults". Everything else needs to be discussed, normally on the article's talk page, of if malice can be clearly proven, WP:ANI. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} or use the unblock wizard. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

? He violated Wikipedia policy. WP:NOR. There is no discussion to be had. Bubba6t3411 (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion to be had about precisely this, on the article's talk page where you correctly invited the other user to. That was good. Continuing the edit war that led to the previous block wasn't good. I'd like to see what happens next; chances are we'll have two blocks and then a discussion about reducing both to partial blocks. Or we have a talk page response because the other user understands the warning they had received. We'll see. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What talk page response could they possibly give to defend committing original research? Bubba6t3411 (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read their mind. Let's please wait what they do next before deciding what to do with your block. I'm open to reducing it to a partial block and giving it an automatic expiry date, but please let's wait a day or two to see if anything happens there. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Bubba6t3411 (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaand now there are two blocks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I saw it coming. I'm surprised he still tried justifying original research. Anyway, I won't be engaging any further in the edit war. I'll try talking to him if he still even wants to discuss. Until he either admits to his violation or we get a third opinion, I won't be editing the article. Could my block be reduced to a partial one? Bubba6t3411 (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please don't message them directly for now; the article's talk page is fine. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:23, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Bubba6t3411 (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bubba6t3411 already returned to edit warring on the Franco-Spanish War (1635–1659) article and made personal attacks in the edit summary calling others "abusive". Mzxw (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not an edit war. FR1917 is not reverting. Also, this might be a sockpuppet account of Waylon1104. Bubba6t3411 (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree can you or any other admin take a quick look at this account? It is oddly suspicious. Also, I've linked several of the abusive temp accounts in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FR1917. Might just be the same guy too (referring to Waylon1104 not FR1917). Bubba6t3411 (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look. Please ignore sockpuppetry suspicions for now. Focus on content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Did you CU Waylon1104 too? Also does this mean that those temp accounts are also FR1917? Bubba6t3411 (talk) 10:54, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No comment and, as far as I can see, irrelevant for your editing for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Mzxw (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bludgeon

Read wp:bludgeon. Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Literally what the both of you are doing. I'm having to reply to every one of who while none of you actually provide and logical basis and then proceed to make a statement or ask a question without reading what was previously stated. Bubba6t3411 (talk) 11:18, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And I have now said I will not be replying anymore as we have exhausted this. Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you need to read WP:NOTDUMB. Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read it. Bubba6t3411 (talk) 11:22, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Logic is not a good argument on Wikipedia, [[wp:p[olicy is]], we go by what the bulk of WP:rs say, read wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also I note you are already aware of the 3rr rule. Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Made 0 reverts. Bubba6t3411 (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]