Check user
Hi. Can you please check if this user is a potential sock of this indef blocked user. Thanks. DaHuzyBru (talk) 08:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am not a CheckUser. There is not enough behavior for me to block. And even if I were a CheckUser, the suspected master account is stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The master account has indef block and TP block – not much more the original account can do, so it's obviously going to go stale. The new account has gone straight to a page that the master account edited heavily, including adding the blank sections that the new account has now "filled". Is it worth me asking a CheckUser? DaHuzyBru (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, as I said, the master account is stale, so the CU will not be able to compare the data of the suspected sock with the master. You can, if you wish, file a report at WP:SPI, seeking a behavioral block. I don't think there's enough for it, but someone else may feel differently. You might wait to see if they continue to edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The master account has indef block and TP block – not much more the original account can do, so it's obviously going to go stale. The new account has gone straight to a page that the master account edited heavily, including adding the blank sections that the new account has now "filled". Is it worth me asking a CheckUser? DaHuzyBru (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
User Ayohama SPI
Hi Bbb23, you recently interacted with user Ayohama on Mark Karpelès and last month blocked user Amber hurt as a sockpuppet on the page. I have opened an SPI against Ayohama, which you may be interested in: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Lustigermutiger21. I have also requested a checkuser there. – notwally (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good job.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Will Gao edits retracted:
If you listen to the podcast on the page, the edits I made are exactly what's said by Will Gao on the podcast.
Same with the edits made on Will's sister's, Olivia Gao's page. Editor00744 (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Renewed edit warring
As per our last discussion here, I am updating you that Rueben lys has resumed edit warring and hasn't done anything else after coming off from the block. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- My words come back to haunt me. Let me think about it, although you're welcome to go to another admin in the interim. Drmies, what do you think? Sporadic disruption is annoying, but it might warm you up.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think that p-blocking the user from editing the article is valid. I also think that it would be handy if User:Azuredivay, who reverted the user, could make their point clear on the talk page. Your editor hasn't been back there, which is a good reason for a p-block, but that discussion is so fraught with technicalities about ... well, whatever it's about, that it's not clear to me where the three or four editors stand, including User:Fowler&fowler. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- user:Abhishek0831996 is a very peculiar kind of civil POV pusher whose POV I have as yet been unable to ascertain, for it flits about so much.
- On the Mahatma Gandhi page, for example, they are the prime force for removing any mention of Gandhi's (overwhelmingly cited) pressuring of the Indian government during his last fast in 1948 to pay out some cash assets to Pakistan, which the government eventually did, but not before some Hindu nationalist lunatics were riled up enough to murder Gandhi. (This could suggest a Hindu nationalist POV, especially as the prime force in the Indian government who had opposed the pay out was Vallabhbhai Patel, who is today also a darling of India's Hindu nationalists.)
- But on the Indian National Army page, Abhishek* is part of a group that is opposed to any mention of voluntary enlistment in the second (and final) army led by Subhas Chandra Bose. Again, here too, there is an overwhelming academic evidence that roughly half the second INA was recruited from volunteering Tamil civilians from Malaya and Singapore. Abhishek* and his group seem determined for the article (and especially its lead) to say only that the INA was a traitor army, comprising British Army POVs during Japanese occupation of Burma, Malaya, and Singapore, which is hardly a Hindu nationalist line.
- Abhishek* and his group seem to flit about together from article to article and engage in edit warring, RfCs, etc. Sometimes I think they are like a group of kids in high school who are doing this for hi jinks, for outside of the edit warring they hardly every contribute any content to the articles whose talk pages they intermittently descend upon.
- Reuben llys, on the other hand, I have known from the time I arrived on WP in 2006. He remains the resident expert on the INA. He and I have not always seen eye to eye on the historical assessments of the INA, but I have come to respect him, for he speaks the language of historians, and pays attention to nuance. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- PS User:Rueben lys might be an old fashioned content creator who writes, and sometimes edit wars, but does not pay much attention to WP rules. Abhishek* and his group, on the other hand, have boned up much on the WP rules and regulations, but have a very limited understanding of South Asian history. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think that p-blocking the user from editing the article is valid. I also think that it would be handy if User:Azuredivay, who reverted the user, could make their point clear on the talk page. Your editor hasn't been back there, which is a good reason for a p-block, but that discussion is so fraught with technicalities about ... well, whatever it's about, that it's not clear to me where the three or four editors stand, including User:Fowler&fowler. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Thankyou Fowoler. The Indian National Army article has descended into a farcical PoV shadow of what it was. I take pride in the version I wrote many years ago, but that is not why I reverted. The reversion is simply vecause rhe aritcle in it's current form is inaccurate and blatantly PiV. With regards to your observations about a specific group of editors, I am deeply suspicious they are associated or affiliated to an Indian political party and only look to bolster, barnish and embolden their version and hope to cast aspersions on any potential competing historical political entity that might tarnish their reputation or claims to legacy. Blocking me from editing the INA page would be a joke, since I appear to be the only one who has given time and effort to developing it into a detailed balanced and nuanced NPOV article written with credible historical works, as opposed to using the fantastic alternative history of B attle of Hogwarts, as some editors seem to rely on.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 13:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC) ,
@Iamsteve69420 trying to evade his block
Hello @Bbb23, It looks like Iamsteve69420 trying to evade his block, he logged in in his computer but remains logged out on his phone. If you look at his userpage, he mentions his birthplace is in João Pessoa, Paraíba and if I look at his IP address 2804:14c:da80:8206:95a:a68c:425c:e4c3, it also says the same place as his birthplace and it must be him. Can you also please block his IP address? Thanks! Vitaium (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Talking about Quebec
look @Bbb23, some people speaks English in Quebec, sometimes, I don't speak French, I only speak English BigStoneonWiki (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- The issue, User:BigStoneonWiki isn't that some Quebeckers only speak English (I certainly know many - including the current Governor General of Canada, Mary Simon). It's what the official language is. Many Americans know Spanish, but it certainly isn't an official language. Though it is complicated that because Canada does have French as an official language (but sadly not Inuktitut), then federal services must be fully available in English throughout Quebec. Either way, I think this is a content dispute and best discussed at Talk:Quebec (though I can assure you that the status quo would be the end of result, so my advice is just to leave it as the discussion would be futile - see Talk:Quebec/Archive 6#Official language (fair compromise) and also the following discussion). Nfitz (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I said I don't speak French, I only speak English, okay @Nfitz? BigStoneonWiki (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I guess I don't know what your point is then. I assumed it was about your reverted edit to the Quebec infobox. Nfitz (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I said I don't speak French, I only speak English, okay @Nfitz? BigStoneonWiki (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)