User talk:TechScience2044

This user has no alternative account.

This user may sometimes share an IP address with TopDisky5835.

This user may sometimes share an IP address with ParticularEvent318.

Hello, TechScience2044!

I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

• Editing
• Referencing
• Images
• Tables
• Policies and guidelines
• Talk pages
• Navigating
• Manual of Style

---

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

---

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

• Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
• It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
• If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
• Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
• When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
• If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
• Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, ObserveOwl (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sending a note! •TechScience2044 (|send me a note|) 19:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Feline Hymnic. An edit that you recently made to Furl seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. Thanks! Feline Hymnic (talk) 09:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn’t a test edit. •TechScience2044 (|send me a note|) 19:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TechScience2044! The thread you created at the Teahouse, New user on Wikipedia., has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. •TechScience2044 (|send me a note|) 09:53, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:ChronicleBooks885 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChronicleBooks885. 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.

Elli (talk | contribs) 23:47, 21 April 2025 (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).

TechScience2044 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

To declare this, I’m using this account on a shared mobile range. But for this reason, I have been accused for being a sockpuppet account, while at a same time, being reported at SPI. To let anyone know this, I am a new user on Wikipedia, since this account is created recently and asked a new question to Teahouse. For additional information, my WiFi connection is the personal hotspot, instead of regular residential connection. So this means that my IP address is different, since it has changed from last year. This means that the checkuser who ran a check, produced different results, instead of the same. This IP address I am using is not the same as it was in 2023. Meaning, the IP address EnjoyBrowser557 and WikiCoverings11111 have used are different and not very identical, compared to me today. And the personal hotspot is shared by several users and editors. Furthermore, this IP range is nationwide, meaning that it can be from any different location. So, in these regards to that, can you please give me and others a shared IP template because of declaration and please also see Wikipedia:NOASSUMESOCK, Wikipedia:Lurkers, and Wikipedia:DONTBITE. Also, WP:SHARE can be useful too, as well as Wikipedia:WikiVampire. So, how did anyone notice me as a sockpuppet? Just what are the ways to avoid socking accusations. By the way ltbdl is already blocked for sockpuppetry, after a violation of topic ban. To add to this salt, I don’t really believe that I’m trolling in the TeaHouse, since this type of question is never intended to be a troll question. And I seem that one of the secrets users is biting me as a newcomer. I was even here to build an encyclopedia due to interest. In another terms, I didn’t do any kind of paid editing and never worked for an another company, meaning again that I never edit any of these articles with COI. Thank you. •TechScience2044 (send me a note) 02:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I will confirm the result that says you are at a minimum also in control of the following accounts:

• TechScience2044 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• TopDisky5835 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• ParticularEvent318 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• Coolweb092 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• Clubtoon112 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• TechnoloyWise02 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• GameCastle1929 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)

The data is pretty unambiguous here and I would expect any appeal to fess up to the socking. Izno (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2025 (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.

•TechScience2044 (|send me a note|) 02:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if my block appeal is reviewed. •TechScience2044 (|send me a note|) 08:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two new questions to ask:

1. How did one of these users detect me as a sockpuppet through an SPI, despite making innocuous edits and a being a newcomer on Wikipedia? Where did they even report me from?

2. Why did a functionary ran a checkuser on me with the intention to confirm sockpuppetry establishment, during an SPI? I highly doubt it. •TechScience2044 (|send me a note|) 08:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI looks like a "backfilled" one - the CU was running a check based on a private request with hard evidence, found a sockfarm, and then documented their findings on-wiki so as to justify their actions and inform other CUs. Only another Checkuser can review this block specifically because of the non-public info involved (read: your technical information). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské Couriano @ObserveOwl

For your information:

1. Did I either got reported through the Discord server or direct to SPI?

2. I don’t really understand what does sock farming mean to me?

3. The single checkuser thought that these accounts that are ready to block are the same person as me, when in fact none of them are. Me and others are different people Wikipedia, but using a shared IP range, specifically mobile hotspot.

4. I asked a Teahouse being a new user on Wikipedia, this is where anyone welcome me in Wikipedia, by giving me a welcome message on my talk page and suggesting me on the introduction to editing. To be fair, I’m not a sockpuppet account of someone, so this isn’t me. Take a look at this: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1251/New_user_on_Wikipedia.

As you can see, this is my first time contributing to Wikipedia.

But did the random user on Wikipedia Discord server cause me to get reported through Wikipedia with Checkuser request? If so, why? •TechScience2044 (|send me a note|) 17:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TechScience2044:

1. I couldn't answer this even if I had that information.
2. I think you know what it means and are playing stupid in an attempt to fish information out of users like CoffeeCrumbs.
3. "Confirmed" as a CU result leaves pretty much no wiggle room. (I am not at liberty to explain further.)
4. You say you're a "first-time contributor" but you're behaving like a seasoned hand. That explanation makes no sense.

—Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské Couriano

5. There are other accounts controlled by different people, have asked at least one question in Teahouse related to curiosity of contributing to encyclopedia. These aren’t not even ridiculous questions to answer on Teahouse Wikipedia. They even have unique userpages, so highly doubt that they are sockpuppet accounts.

6. At of course, I even get to participate in April Fools nominations. Plus other users have done these so.

So it’s not like an abuse of multiple accounts. If I did, it would be for privacy and security reasons, as well as clean start. Some of them retired and no longer edit already. •TechScience2044 (|send me a note|) 23:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TechScience2044, please read WP:HOLES. Consider it deeply. And come back in six months. -- asilvering (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, already read shortly. •TechScience2044 (|send me a note|) 09:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your appeal has been placed onto a category for admins to eventually review; it is best to be patient. ObserveOwl (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the way that I have been accused for sockpuppetry is very ridiculous and unamused. I feel like the checkuser is fishing on my account and violating my privacy rights. But I still don’t believe that these accounts are the same person and individual, since I don’t think I own other accounts. I also still don’t believe that any of these accounts belong to me. To me, these users listed there are still separate people, but they use the shared IP range, known as roommate or any public internet connection. This is the main reason why I need to use the shared IP template for me and others. •TechScience2044 (|send me a note|) 09:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what Jéské Couriano said, when you registered an account, under the Terms of Use, you agreed that WMF and its associated projects may investigate user misuse at their sole discretion. Checkusers are very careful when looking at technical data, to the extent that just being an administrator doesn't give one the ability to check this data. But this group of people, entrusted by the WMF, are unambiguously permitted to investigate.

And typically speaking, sockpuppetry that is "confirmed" is from more than simply a range of IP addresses (you may see "likely" or "probable" in those cases). Frankly, the case for sockpuppetry is strong even just with behavioral data. I've seen a lot of unblock requests over the years, and I don't think "there simply are 10 other people editing the same topics, in the same style, with similarly formatted Wikipedia handles, at the same time, using the same IP address," will be an effective argument. Especially when combined with accusing others of malfeasance. The way to rebuild trust around here is candor and courtesy. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CoffeeCrumbs “candor and courtesy”? What is this for? •TechScience2044 (|send me a note|) 17:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It means "be polite, and be honest". -- asilvering (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering @CoffeeCrumbs @Izno @Elli Yes, but for this reason, could you please take a look and check to see on my userpage before checkuser replaced it with sockpuppet tag, this includes other accounts userpages, since I don’t believe they are operated by the same person. Don’t forget to look at their userboxes too. •TechScience2044 (|send me a note|) 18:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked, I read the userpages for all the editors in question, including yours, and it just makes me more convinced that all the accounts are the same person. All the users in question, including you, mainly use a very individualized handle naming scheme, usually two English words that don't typically go together, mostly with both words capitalized, with some numbers tacked onto the end. All of them speak in the same stilted English and have issues with conjugating verbs. All of them provide a random list of things they like as if this were a Facebook profile and mostly list a different language that they normally speak. These are not the only similarities.

That the userboxes are different doesn't matter. Give me 15 minutes and I could create an account with text and userboxes that claim I'm a Bulgarian professional bobsledder who loves apples, ravioli, and Call of Duty or a Trinidadian fisherman who practices Buddhism and enjoys studying Kantian ethics.

I only came here to give you advice on what I believe would be the best approach that may lead to you getting another chance at some point. What you do is up to you, and I have nothing more to offer than to wish you good fortune. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CoffeeCrumbs Thank you for advising me, before taking and going on a long wikibreak, take a look at this link ParticularEvent318 gave out, which is a question related to Teahouse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1251#New_user_on_Wikipedia.

Search this archive called New user on Wikipedia.

It shows that editors have welcomed me as newcomer, leading them to giving me a welcome template. That is the last post I’m giving out, before I’m logging out of my Wikipedia account and being left to explore off wiki-site. •TechScience2044 (|send me a note|) 09:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That you received a welcome template message doesn't have any relevance. It's a common courtesy, and a person giving it would not know at that point that you were a sockmaster. In any case, good fortune on your time away, and hopefully you can come back some day with a new approach towards Wikipedia and get your editing rights restored. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales finally managed to respond to my question at his talk page. How surprising is this… •TechScience2044 (|send me a note|) 05:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not surprising at all. Jimbo edits only sporadically these days, and his editing frequency has been declining for 15 years. Cullen328 (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 I agree with you. Besides, what are the factors of his decline in editing in 15 years and how to counter it? Is they a way to keep him very active on Wikipedia, then of course, nobody knows what he would do in the next decade. •TechScience2044 (|send me a note|) 09:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those are complex questions. In brief, I think that Wikipedia has grown beyond the point where a famous charismatic figurehead was needed at the center of attention. His efforts are probably better spent as a member of the Wikimedia Foundation board, and he has gradually given up his special powers on the English Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 Polite answer. What is interesting to me is I get to meet Jimbo Wales for the first time on online, but I’m still very anonymous. What projects of technology is he currently working in? •TechScience2044 (|send me a note|) 19:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you read Jimmy Wales and User: Jimbo Wales. Cullen328 (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 I read this article and felt very surprised, by the way he is in hall of fame. How much philosophy does he have in his life and how does he share his thoughts to anyone in particular? If he revolutionized the wikis, what about the print industry, such as books, magazines, and newspapers? •TechScience2044 (|send me a note|) 20:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to research those issues on your own. Cullen328 (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 Thanks for giving me advice. •TechScience2044 (|send me a note|) 22:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]