User talk:Bobcat1997

August 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to 2020 China–India skirmishes has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: 2020 China–India skirmishes was changed by Bobcat1997 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.854179 on 2020-08-20T23:45:44+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Wareon (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:YuukiHirohiko per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YuukiHirohiko. 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 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 ~~~~}}. Mz7 (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bobcat1997 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I’d like to understand why was my account blocked in the first place? Why would I have Indian named accounts? Is this a joke? I was defending the page from Aman Kumar Goel who was violating the consensus and agree upon sources to push for his own rhetoric. We had PM discussions and I made my points. Now he that he fails to counter me he reports me for SOCKPUPPETS? Can you not see that I’m not violating and rules here? Bobcat1997 (talk) 06:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a checkuser block, meaning that there is technical evidence to support it. If you are not a sock, you will need to provide a plausible explanation as to why technical and other evidence might indicate otherwise. Note that anyone can register a username of any nationality or culture. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bobcat1997 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

If you had a look at the content we were editing the so called sock contradicts with my content. I’m Australian and no way has my account been used for vandalizing. If you look at my main account Yuuki, the so called “Patel” sock clashed and contradicted with my editing. This is really bizarre and I request to investigate. There is a thing called ISP hijacking and I have indeed exposed my IP before on my edits on Japanese pages. I do live in Australia and I can prove this is my physical location. I created this sock today however to restore the said article’s consensus page. If you have a look at my Yuuki account’s talk page you’d see Amar Kumar Goel failing to counter my argument therefore tries to frame me of vandalizing. There is clear consensus in the talk section of the said article and he was the one breaking it by changing both the sources cited and info written. Bobcat1997 (talk) 4:51 am, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

you’re openly admiring to using a sock puppet for inappropriate means (to edit war). No reason to unblock. only (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bobcat1997 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As I said before, I was RESTORING the page to the discussed status in the talk section. How is this edit warring if I’m the correct one here? Please for the sake of fairness check what the talk page says on the page. We had concluded that “35 killed” was INCORRECT as it has been busted as fake news by Indian outlets. I’m defending the page from vandalism if you actually took the time to see the talk section. Amar Kumar Goel FAILED to rebut me in my own talk page therefore reported me as edit warring. Please read the talk page for details regarding the consensus to 35 “casualties” Bobcat1997 (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed sock puppetry. Talk page access revoked to prevent further time-wasting. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]