Hello, ParticularEvent318, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.
Hello ParticularEvent318. I just noticed your comment on the RfA talk page, and saw that your signature is a bit difficult to read. Could you please make the colour darker so that there is sufficient contrast with the background? You can use this link contrast checker to help find a suitable colour. Thanks in advance! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee Yes, and I have something to talk about the implementation of extended confirmed users on RFA. Its that I must be extended confirmed to vote in RFA. - ParticularEvent318home (speak!). 21:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After I voted in n RFA due to being auto confirmed, another user decided that I need to be extended confirmed to edit in RFA. I never realized that a lot in RFA has changed in terms of rules and policies. - ParticularEvent318home (speak!). 21:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee I’m objecting this because I wanted to create a reversal on Proposal 14, since I have a viewpoint that does not agree on how Proposal 14 should be implemented and what that proposer believed in was not in my interest. After reading the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements, I was not surprised about the implementation of the policy. Although many users have supported this proposal, one of the Wikipedia bureaucrats, Xaosflux, oppose this proposal and said on this page, “Don't think we should disenfranchise contributors from participating in discussions based on this. It's not a vote.” He has a great point on this proposal, since it discourages experienced editors from voting on RFA when making a proper reason. And besides to that, I agree with his viewpoint on the proposal, it can’t to fair otherwise. Even the auto-confirmed users such as ones that make normal edits, have contributed well on this Wikipedia. This is it. - ParticularEvent318home (speak!). 21:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to open a new RfC, but I'd definitely recommend you not do so. You are very new here. There is a ton to understand, see WP:P&G and all its links (and the links its links link to), which should take you a few months to get through. An editor with 33 edits is unfortunately much more likely to embarrass themselves than to actually create an RfC that goes anywhere. I'm sorry that this probably sounds harsh.
The basic reason the community decided to limit opposes/supports in RfA is that editors with fewer than 500 edits tend not to actually have much to contribute that is helpful. They're unlikely to have had meaningful interaction with the candidate or to know how to assess a candidate. Often they just get caught up in the excitement and want to participate.
Just as a for instance, I see that you've had zero interaction with Goldsztajn, but at their RfA you wrote "This can make you a great administrator! Also, you are well aware about the core principles of Wikipedia". How did you come to this conclusion? Valereee (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee Just to be clear and fair, it was very random to me to vote at RFA when things have changed a lot in terms of policies and proposals. I went there since it was actively open and few users went to RFA for becoming a administrator. - ParticularEvent318home (speak!). 22:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not sure what you mean by "few users went to RFA for becoming a administrator". Or "I went there since it was actively open" for that matter. And you started editing a week ago, things haven't changed since then. I'm confused. Can you clarify? Valereee (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need to, but I understand the support on Proposal 14 after reading the RFA review from 2024. What I mean that few users went to RFA means to become an administrator is that according to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship by year and by month, the amount and quantity of RFA nominations in later years are lower than in earlier years except for 2024, which is 54 of course. For example, in 2005-2007, there were about 600-920 RFAs nominated, but in 2021, the nominations were only 11 of these. I noticed a decrease if RFAs each year since the 2010s. I made a vote here in 2025 because, RFA happens once in a while and on such occasions, unlike the 2000s. - ParticularEvent318home (speak!). 23:13, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are many fewer RfAs than in the past. But PE318, that is not because there aren't enough people supporting/opposing. It's because there aren't enough candidates. The community decided that supports/opposes from editors who were very new wasn't helping the process. That's why they settled on requiring EC. Make a few hundred more constructive edits, and you'll be able to participate in the next one. But please: do so thoughtfully, based on your own interactions with the candidate or on your assessment of their contributions. Valereee (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, you could really have a valid point on this. But why were there so many candidates in 2005-2007? Is this because of early development of Wikipedia? - ParticularEvent318home (speak!). 23:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The by month chart Valereee notes shows a trend that is never going to be reversed. If you think of Wikipedia as a product; all products have a lifecycle. Wikipedia, in its infancy, had a very empty canvas that needed to be painted. Lots of new editors had all sorts of opportunities to create new articles, new structures, new management processes, etc. With ~7 million articles now, there isn't much room now for creating new articles. We've spent 20 years building structures and management processes. The less there is for people to create, the less engagement you are likely to have. It's inevitable. The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) has tried to reverse this trend, not understanding the realities of this lifecycle. Think of it this way; mobile phones started becoming all the rage 25 years ago. There was a wide open market. All sorts of vendors sprang up to take advantage of this new market. There were engineering firms to create the networks, there were manufacturers to make the phones, there were carriers who sold the services, etc. The market was positively booming with all sorts of new, with explosive growth. A market that hadn't existed 10 years before suddenly exploded into existence. Now, 25 years on, almost everyone has a mobile phone. There's no new market to explode into, no new networks that have to be built from the ground up, no new manufacturers that have to spin up fast to meet demand. When 95% of the market is saturated, there's no room for growth. You can't reverse that trend. You can't take everyone's mobile phone away and then re-ignite the explosive growth. Wikipedia is the same. Wikipedia is well past its heyday, and that's never going to change. Allowing non-EC editors to vote at RfA will have no impact on that. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I need to see the difference between autoconfirmed users voting in RFA and extended confirmed users voting in RFA. While I was reading the reply post from Hammersoft, I noticed the last sentence, saying that non-EC users lacking an impact. The thing I discovered is all products have a lifecycle and the trend is never going to be reversed. That’s it though. - ParticularEvent318home (speak!). 09:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can certainly do that research; enable Preferences>Gadgets>Nav popups and that information is visible by hovering over a username. Valereee (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In case you actually thought that your edit improved the article, you must take much greater care. The punctuation mark you removed is necessary for the sentence to make sense.bonadeacontributionstalk09:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ParticularEvent318! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Expanding articles, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.
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.
Oh come on, all I wanted is to become extended confirmed editor to vote in RFAs and the fact I got caught in both sockpuppet and checkuser block are upsetting and unsurprising to see this to me. But even I contacted the administrators and meet with experienced editors, I still don’t know why, I’m being linked by a checkuser, even though I never did anything non-constructive and totally innocuous edits. - ParticularEvent318home (speak!). 17:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are thinking about this, I use the shared IP mobile range as other users, since my account is created on the personal hotspot and used on a mobile platform, aka iPhone. Its not that I committed sockpuppetry, these accounts are controlled by different and separate people, due to differing username and userpages. - ParticularEvent318home (speak!). 20:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ParticularEvent318, you are pretty obviously a sockpuppet account. You've done this enough times that you must know already that this kind of protest doesn't get you anywhere. As far as I can tell, the only thing you've ever really done wrong is create approximately a gajillion accounts. If you stop doing this, it won't be too hard to get unblocked. So just... stop. -- asilvering (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering And I’m also one of the users that asked a least one question in Teahouse, just search my username in the Teahouse archives, as well as TechScience2044. But if a clerk, admin, and a checkuser tagged my userpage with sockpuppet template, what is the main purpose and point of placing sockpuppet tags on any of either confirmed or suspected sockpuppet account’s userpages if they are not going to edited anytime soon?
Despite that I know and are familiarized with sockpuppetry on Wikipedia and its policy on multiple accounts, I often visit, read, and lurk this page. - ParticularEvent318home (speak!). 22:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your question. None of the tagged accounts are going to edit any time soon. The purpose of putting tags on sockpuppet userpages is to help keep track of sockpuppets easily. -- asilvering (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering Sorry for late reply since taking a break and inactivity, I mean the Teahouse questions I asked are considered newbies, in order to prove we are newcomers, same with TechScience2044 and TopDisky5835. Another thing is don’t bite the newcomers. See these links here:
Again if you visit these links, you will find out that these questions are relevant to new user on Wikipedia. Even some admins and experienced editors have gave me welcome templates on my talk page, so with others. - ParticularEvent318home (speak!). 09:07, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering This user: Rizky Juliandief isn’t me, it was someone else actually from Indonesia. My IP does geolocate to California and the Southwest. Plus, I didn’t even use the help me template. Only TechScience2044 did. Please do not forget that I never created any drafts, I only created sandboxes on my userspace. I didn’t even work on these drafts to begin with. The topic areas a user edited, is related to Indonesia. But I never edited these topic areas at all. So yeah, this user, Rizky Juliandief, isn’t me though. And this user uses a different IP too. So it might be either meatluppetry or someone making edits on a behalf. Since this SPI is still and always ongoing, I going to wait until further notice. - ParticularEvent318home (speak!). 08:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rizky Juliandief That is ok, everyone makes mistakes all the time. Plus, I noticed that you are from Indonesia. Mine is different. So my IP geolocates to California. Sometimes the SPI makes false positives and errors within seasons. - ParticularEvent318home (speak!). 08:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ParticularEvent318, kind of you to say so. I'm happy to believe you. The SPIs will indeed continue until you stop making new accounts, though. So please, if you want a way back to editing, stop doing that. The usual way to come back after a lot of sockpuppetry is to take the standard offer. I hope you consider it.
@Rizky Juliandief, if you have repeatedly recreated accounts after being blocked, while continuing the behaviour you were blocked for, yes, you have become an LTA. To the people who are blocking you, it does not matter if you have deliberately harmed the encyclopedia or not - just that you're trying to evade a previous block. If that describes you, you should also stop creating new accounts, and request an unblock, preferably from your earliest account. -- asilvering (talk) 08:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering Ok, I might have the chance to do so. So far that these similarities have sometimes lead to a false positive. If I had a chance to learn more about encyclopedia, then I would be reading books to take the best wikibreak. Also, the account, ChronicleBooks885, is no longer accessible, since the password is lost and this account is only used for schools only for few months before graduation. And ChronicleBooks885 is just a throwaway anccount. The username “ChronicleBooks” got blocked for being similar to the bookstore in San Francisco. But the numbers at the end, are just random and have no meaning to it. And this account often got blocked only in the first place because of soft username violation, therefore allowing this user to select another account. Unfortunately, since times have changed already, I am unable to go back to previous where I came from. And I’m extremely aware that checkusers will be around as soon as it gets detected anyway. I even became aware that SPI reports are also private, not just public. Also, sockpuppet accusations are often lead to block without any appeal. For my wikibreak, I can enjoy reading many library books, print encyclopedias, magazines, and textbooks, to learn something new. I will still keep browsing Wikipedia to learn something recent too. I’m a college student that would be working at a university, and taking classes. But Bbb23 is also getting the recall for the first time at least. The reason why I love to ask questions on the Wikipedia Teahouse is because, it is a place where frequently asked questions are answered, and its a place where brand new editors are welcomed here with friendly hosts and experienced users. Wikipedia Teahouse is also a place where you can get an answer right away. One that prevent me from leaving is Wikipedia is addicting to me, it is so addictive that I could even create an account not only to customize my userpages, but also signatures, and I frequently log out of my account to participate in April Fools AfDs and the Birthday Wishes. Another thing is that I enjoy logging out of my account just to leave questions on Reference Desk, in order to get an quick answer. Sometimes I would prefer editing through IPs too, because I found IP editing to be satisfying and enjoyable. Until then, I will log off of my account and taking a break for a long time, until I’m ready to contribute again only on occasions. So, see you real soon! - ParticularEvent318home (speak!). 08:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering Do not even for get that ChronicleBooks885 and TextbooksWorld8 are created that are designed for WikiBooks editing that an IP could not. They are designed to make only a few edits and that is it. The reason that they are linked by a checkuser on Wikipedia is because they are created and logged using the same home IP address, same with other recently created accounts on mobile at a time in May 2023. The sole reason on why are they accused of being sockpuppet accounts is because they are never linked each other and are left undisclosed following a time within. They are never designed to be huge editors on Wikipedia and are only used for a short amount of time and left dormant after making a number of edits. Also, since the school IP got blocked, they are instead created and logged into home, and then used them during school. Before you accused me as a sockpuppet account, yes there are times that I use alternate accounts for few reasons and I logged out of my account to have fun contributing to Wikipedia. And one of the biggest reasons on why this IP mobile range, got blocked multiple times is because they were shared by multiple different users and people, leading to odd range of blocks and leaving the range without an account creation sometimes. Sometimes I could face hostility and conflict from others. For entertainment, my amusement does not just extend from IP address and my userpages, it extends to my questions at the Teahouse, where I find it always fun to leave multiple questions on the Teahouse by having letting others answer these. I could be an editor at some point, but my favorite thing on Wikipedia is to edit articles under IP addresses and unnamed contributions. And not all of these usernames listed in SPI have a similar pattern, sometimes they can something else. The enjoyable part is that I can communicate with other editors in general by responding with a comment and replying to this. And one part that stands me is I am completely anonymous, which means I am hiding behind a screen, so there is no way when I became dormant and take a wikibreak without notifying others, I can just have the right to leave Wikipedia whatsoever besides to that. - ParticularEvent318home (speak!). 09:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering However, why do these checkusers often link sleeper accounts and ones that are unused, when there are no contributions whatsoever? Why do sockpuppet allegations often happen all the time, whenever it edits? Although I am hiding behind a screen, why am I still getting detected as a sockpuppet account, even though I am anonymous and can edit? Why are my editing patterns still getting spotted and detected? Thank you though. - ParticularEvent318home (speak!). 09:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ParticularEvent318, I'm glad you find Wikipedia fun and fulfilling. That's what we want it to be. But please understand that Wikipedia is informative, helpful place that it is because of the dedicated efforts of volunteers. When you ask your questions, you're getting answers from volunteers who care a lot about this place and want to help confused newcomers - but you aren't a confused newcomer. I gather from this that you don't think of this as lying, but that's what you're doing - you're lying to people who are just trying to help. And every time one of us answers a question, we're spending our time answering that question and not doing something else that needs to be done. Your addictive game ends up hurting this place that you love.
You're not actually anonymous. You're pseudonymous. That may sound like splitting hairs, but we know who you are, even when you try to go by a different name or edit as an IP. I don't mean "we know who you are" like "we know your full legal name" - don't panic. But to us, you're ChronicleBooks885. It doesn't matter what name you take. You can't "hide behind a screen". We only care about what's on the screen. -- asilvering (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilveringlying to people who are just trying to help? That is fine to me, although I am trying to figure out what this phrase stands for. I am still pretty shocked on why does everyone in this community know I am this kind of same person, even though I try to go on by different usernames or IP addresses, why is this connection still discovered anyway? Listen, after random amount of hiatus is over, I will decide that if I could contribute here again. But if you very skilled at detecting sockpuppet accounts, then it is my decision for me to never edit again this time. - ParticularEvent318home (speak!). 22:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
