User talk:Skubydoo

New to Wikipedia.

Welcome

Hello, Skubydoo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —Bagumba (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Getting started Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Help directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Skubydoo, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to Michel Platini has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Qzd (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

April 2020

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Draft:Animal Products in Pharmaceuticals. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Diannaa,

Thanks for this message. I didn't realize I hadn't made the excerpt from the FDA document a blockquote. I've changed it to a blockquote now. Is there anything else you see that I need to change?

Stay safe,

Skubydoo (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Animal Products in Pharmaceuticals (April 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Animal Products in Pharmaceuticals and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Animal Products in Pharmaceuticals, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Skubydoo! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Sulfurboy (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Animal products in pharmaceuticals has been accepted

Animal products in pharmaceuticals, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Sulfurboy (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thanks for guidance on the IP thing. Silly mistake on my part. Appreciate the help.

Kbhatt22 (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Systemic bias

Please refrain from comments like this:

I think the attempts to discredit specifically non-European scholars is part of Wikipedia’s systemic bias WP:BIAS. This practice of trying to assume a biased perspective of Indian writers (instead of creating the intellectual space to recognize scholarship from brown writers as valid, acceptable, and meaningful) and privileging European writers (as if they have no perspective at all and are inherently neutral, untainted, and superior) is extremely problematic.

I've clearly explained why I think it's wrong to pick-out Iva Patel while ignoring other sources, including Paramtattvadas. This kind of accusations can, and will, get you blocked. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Joshua Jonathan, I was surprised to see this response on my talk page. I am sure you are not disagreeing that the systemic bias in Wikipedia is problematic. Indeed, it is a well documented problem. This article[1] in the Guardian clearly explains how this affects representation of non-Western and non-English subjects, among others. See also: WP:WORLDVIEW. Rather than seeing my observation as an “accusation” could you consider the realities of systemic bias on Wikipedia? It is a problem, and we can be part of the solution. How can we all work to counter systematic bias? How can we carefully consider and make room for non-European authors? These are questions worth asking, and worth answering. Please know that including one author who is not of European origin is not enough. You have repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of non-European authors in the Swaminarayan Sampradaya talk page. I don’t want to parse out how many or which ones, because that is not the point I am trying to make. If you are offended by the idea that something you have said is reflective of Wikipedia’s systemic bias, then you know that this systemic bias is not okay. I hope we can turn our attention to how we can give the same consideration to authors of Indian origin as we give to authors of European origin. Thanks for assuming good faith and for your contributions. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

No doubt there is systemic bias. But to state that I question an author because she's non-European is misplaced; I question the source because she's not accurate, and cannot be used as a sole source, when multiple other sources, written by persons with more expertise (Hanna Kim is of Asian descent, I suppose?), have a different view. Framing that as systemic bias is not done. NB: I bought H.T. Dave, Life and Philosophy of Shree Swaminarayan (I wanted to verify one specific piece of info sourced to him; it may give you an impression how serious I take checking sources); British, I assume, and definitely not WP:RS. So, 'European' sources can be questioned as well. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Joshua Jonathan, after looking at your edits in a bit more detail I agree that you may not be biased against Indian scholars but take issue with scholars you perceive as religious. Of course, when there are monks writing books about religion, it is possible for that to be a religious perspective. However, when it is published by an esteemed academic press, that necessarily also makes it an academic perspective. Even though the perspective may be religious-- it is still necessarily academic. They are not mutually exclusive. The same is true for nonreligious perspectives. All of the material presented by the WP:RS in that discussion are published by reputable sources, and have been vetted by scholars who I am sure happen to be of various religious and cultural backgrounds. I think that, as per Wikipedia’s standard of encyclopedic neutrality, we should be more concerned with evaluating credibility and consensus than we are with positionality. While Wikipedia may not be the forum to address external biases, I believe (and I think you do as well) that it is important to be vigilant with regards to systemic bias within Wikipedia. What do you propose I do if I am concerned about a user’s biases, other than to discuss them openly? I am open to your suggestions. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for November 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hinduism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Balaji Mandir. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

More content

There is a draft Draft:Vegan Medicines that overlaps in content with the article you created. I am copying content from that into the existing article, and will then ask that the draft be deleted. David notMD (talk) 10:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi @David notMD, I saw that "Animal use during product development or production" was added to Animal Products in Pharmaceuticals. Thanks for adding that information! That's definitely an important issue that needs to be addressed. Were you planning on expanding on that section or should I go ahead and add to it? Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

GA nomination.

As you have made edits to Hinduism, I suggest that you nominate it for WP:GA, as I feel it is quite good. The rest is your choice.--Assassin77177 (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Note that an article needs to meet the actual GA criteria to be successful—for example, it needs to meet MOS:LEAD, which is currently doesn't appear to. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Assassin77177, I see you’ve already nominated the page, but thanks for getting in touch. @BlueMoonset, thank you for the friendly reminder. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ACE2020

Hello!

Due to some technical difficulties on your vote in this year's ArbCom election, it was necessary to strike it. As such, you will need to vote again.

I'm sorry for the inconvenient.

On behalf of the scrutineers, —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 16:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Women in Red

Hi there, Skubydoo, and welcome to Women in Red. I'm glad to see that you now intend to devote more of your time to creating articles about women with a view to decreasing systemic bias. As you are interested in ancient civilizations, you might be able contribute to our current focus on women classicists. If you have not already done so, you should look through our Ten Simple Rules. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | February 2021, Volume 7, Issue 2, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191 Online events: New: Black women | Classicists | Folklore Contest (Jan/Feb/Mar): Africa Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Ipigott (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

March 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | March 2021, Volume 7, Issue 3, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 192, 193 Online events: New: Art+Activism | VisibleWikiWomen Contest (Jan/Feb/Mar): Africa Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

April editathons from Women in Red

Women in Red | April 2021, Volume 7, Issue 4, Numbers 184, 188, 194, 195, 196 Online events: New: Plants & gardens | Gender studies New Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Women in Europe contest Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

May 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | May 2021, Volume 7, Issue 5, Numbers 184, 188, 197, 198 Online events: New: May Mays | Mental Health Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Women in Europe contest Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman See also: Wikimedia District of Columbia: 100 DC Women contest Wikimedia CEE Spring: Central and Eastern European Women contest The Wikipedia Library: #1Lib1Ref Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Dalit article

Hi skubydoo (talk · contribs), I saw your reply to my post on the Swaminarayan Akshardham talk page. Can you also review the Dalit article (see diff). Harshmellow717 (talk) 05:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Harshmellow717, thanks for sharing this! I responded on the Dalit talk page. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

June 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | June 2021, Volume 7, Issue 6, Numbers 184, 188, 196, 199, 200, 201 Online events: New: Wiki Loves Pride | June Junes | Jewellers & Watchmakers Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Women in Europe contest Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Query about other accounts you might know

Hi there, Skubydoo. I'm Kevin, and I'm an administrator here on Wikipedia, which means it's my job to try to sort out when confusing situations come up. As part of a current matter, I need to ask you whether you recognize any of the following users from outside of Wikipedia: Moksha88, Apollo1203, Harshmellow717, Hexcodes, Golfer1223. In other words, are these your accounts? If not, are they the accounts of friends of yours, or colleagues, or others you might know for non-Wikipedia reasons, or someone who taught you to edit Wikipedia? This is important because if you do know these people in real life, there are certain disclosures you have to make on Wikipedia and some rules that apply differently, but don't worry – if you answer to the best of your knowledge, I can help you make those disclosures. You can answer the question at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moksha88, or you can do so here and ping me. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

July 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | July 2021, Volume 7, Issue 7, Numbers 184, 188, 202, 203, 204, 205 Online events: New: July Julies | Finance, economics & banking | Olympic & Paralympic Games New contest (Jul/Aug/Sep): Latin America contest Continuing: Women's rights | #1day1woman See also: "Mind your elders" Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Moksha88 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moksha88. 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 ~~~~}}.  KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Kevin,

I am not a sockpuppet of another user. If it helps, I am happy to dox myself to myself to prove I am a real independent human person. I don’t understand why I’m being unfairly targeted. Can you please specifically describe to me what behavior or edits have I made that are problematic? Moreover, how long will this block last? I try hard to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and I can’t figure out what exactly I’ve done wrong.

Really hoping for some fairness here.

Best, Skubydoo (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Skubydoo (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

That you are another person would simply mean that this is meatpuppetry. Please review the SPI for the basis of the conclusion of sock or meat puppetry. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

---

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.

Hi KevinL and 331dot,  

I disagree with this SPI and haven’t really responded or paid attention fully because I assumed it would go away on its own, as all nonsensical things do in the end. But this response to my request for unblocking saying the only alternative to me not being a sockpuppet is being a meatpuppet made me pay attention. I have seen the conversations between Tamzin and Kevin and sense that they feel they are doing the right thing. I was happy to read that, actually, because that gave me faith that they are people who are interested in doing the right thing.  

KevinL posted on my talk page that I have been blocked for being a sock of Moksha88. From my understanding blocks should not be punitive but preventative WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE. If I have made any edits that are disruptive and not in line with Wikipedia’s policies or guidelines, I apologize. But after reading the explanation that Tamzin gave and seeing KevinL’s agreement, I am not clear on what I have done that makes me a sock. I have engaged in discussion with some of these users, and we did find agreement on occasion. I was always grateful for their engagement and never felt that there was anything nefarious about us discussing things and there being agreement.

After re-reading everything I am not fully grasping the issue, possibly because from my perspective this is just a few coincidences and spirited engagement and from their perspective it is a conspiracy. I was happy to have users engage meaningfully on a topic with me, and according to the explanatory supplement WP:NOTHERE, not collaborating and furthering a discussion is evidence of not being on Wikipedia to build an encyclopedia. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.WP:DUCKTEST And if you look at my edit history, you will see that I am interested in contributing to the site and following policies and guidelines. That’s it. There’s nothing more to it even though yes, I can be persistent in my views sometimes.  

The impetus for my inclusion in this SPI seems to be the fact that I participated in a request for discussion. In that discussion I stated:  

Delete Hi all, Whenever I search for Swaminarayan Akshardham controversy, I get results relating to the Akshardham Temple Attack, which occurred in 2002. These redirect pages are confusing and makes the encyclopedia more difficult to navigate. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I also clarified this statement in response to another user:

Hi Jay, yes, I am referring to an external search engine. That is an interesting essay, but my comment is not related to the search panel on Google. I am not proposing to fix Google, but this is an opportunity to decrease the American-focused bias on Wikipedia. The issue, which Google is merely a tool to demonstrate, is that Swaminarayan Akshardham and controversy appears regarding the Swaminarayan Akshardham terrorist attack in Gandhinagar, India. To illustrate, the lead of the Akshardham Temple attack article, about Swaminarayan Akshardham in Gandhinagar provides some context for that controversy, "In May 2014, a Supreme Court of India bench acquitted all the six prisoners of all charges and pulled up the Gujarat Police for shoddy investigation in the case." Someone looking for the Swaminarayan Akshardham terrorist attack will search for attack, but it is reasonable to think that someone searching for information regarding the subsequent legal actions would search for controversy. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I am honestly unclear as to how this means that I am somehow associated with Moksha88, or how this was taken by KevinL to be representative of "behavioral evidence." (I am assuming that KevinL is in agreement with everything Tamzin has stated, since the behavioral evidence was never enumerated.)

Tamzin says I have never voted in an RFD before, and this was further taken as somehow evidence of wrongdoing. I found the RFD from a search of the topic on Wikipedia. This is a topic I’ve edited about and there was a lot of recent activity in these pages which I was interested in participating in. I shared my perspective on the RFD. Is that not an expected part of the scope of Wikipedia’s behavioral guidelines? This is a genuine question. If this is wrong, then I would really like to know why.  

The last thing I was working on was the Prasada article, which is a sanctified offering in Hindu and Sikh traditions. Prasada are physical objects but there was literally a Buddhist belief about faith (also called prasada) in the article along with a great deal of unsourced material before I edited it. My edits have improved articles. You can see more about my contributions here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Skubydoo  

I even created a page Animal Products in Pharmaceuticals which was a real labor of love but this was seen by Tamzin as evidence that I edit pharmacy related articles, like another user. This was absolutely flabbergasting to me. With respect to all involved, I don’t even know how to begin to defend myself against such erroneous logic. I think I edited one thing science related when I was just starting, but overall, my edit history shows that I am a hardcore humanities person. If you look at my contributions to the Animal Products in Pharmaceuticals article, it will be obvious what my level of proficiency is with science related subject matter.  

Tamzin states that

Skubydoo's first edit was to create their talk page with the phrase "New to Wikipedia.", which is something that is fairly uncommon among people who are indeed new to Wikipedia.

Thinking that far back I think I remember there was a message asking “New to Wikipedia?” or something like that when I started, which is probably why I wrote that. Could someone please explain what is problematic about this to me? I am really sorry if it sounds like I am being difficult but I genuinely want to understand and I really don’t. To me it appears that Tamzin’s snap judgments are being taken as fact, and after the many hours I’ve spent reading about Wikipedia on Wikipedia I can’t figure out how this is acceptable and is being celebrated by KevinL.

The one thing I can think of that I did do wrong is making my own snap judgment about Tamzin. Tamzin made an assumption that English proficiency for editors who work on Hinduism related articles is exceptional. I called this racist, and I am sorry. I know now that calling people out on Wikipedia for what I perceive as racist never goes well, and is somehow perceived as aggression. I’m not sure what it is about anonymous culture on the internet or on Wikipedia that makes labeling behaviors as racist offensive, but I apologize. It was not my intention to offend, but to share my perspective. I wish my ideas would have been engaged critically by Tamzin. I don’t think it is unusual for those who edit an article about South Asia articles to have English proficiency.  

Lastly, Tamzin uses Sigma Toolforge to show there is "substantial overlap" with myself and these other users. But when you actually look at the table, it does more to how there is not overlap than to show overlap. I did edit some Swaminarayan related articles, but you can clearly see that I did not edit the same articles as these other users. I was happy to engage meaningfully with users on some of these pages. It feels good when people take your ideas seriously. But I don’t think engaging in discussion is a problem. Or is it that we found agreement in the vast sea of turmoil that is the internet? Whatever it is, I would really appreciate it if you walked me through at least some of your logic KevinL. I saw that KevinL gave a barnstar to Tamzin about this SPI, and if that doesn’t show agreement, I don’t know what does. I have been thanked by several users not in this SPI and was even given a goat by one user. (Whatever that means.) But this perception that people shouldn’t ever agree if they carefully examine the facts only in some instances-- that’s troubling. I would really appreciate some engagement with the ideas presented here. Trying not to lose faith in Wikipedia or humanity.

Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. I'll cut straight to the chase: no "snap judgments" were made here. I spent several weeks examining the evidence, as this was a fairly intense behavioral comparison; nonetheless, I am highly confident in my conclusion that the blocked accounts are operated or controlled by a single person, directly or indirectly (via off-wiki coordination). Like in many behavioral investigations, there is often not a single "but-for" deciding factor. I am not going to publicly list the most probative factors; I'll submit any relevant analysis directly to a reviewing administrator if necessary. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

And just to be clear, no part of this block was founded upon your interaction with Tamzin at the SPI. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi KevinL,

Thanks for responding. I have some questions based on your response which I hope you’ll entertain. If I don’t have sufficient context about whatever confusion has led you to these conclusions, I'm not sure how to address it. I was reading a little bit and saw WP:EXPLAINBLOCK which says "The community expects that blocks will be made for good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment..." I was wondering how you are interpreting this policy? I am interpreting it to mean that in addition to the use of good judgment and good reasons, the evidence should be substantive and reviewable by any concerned party (such as user accused.) How can I review the evidence you have? I was also reading about admin accountability WP:ADMINACCT and saw that "Administrators should justify their actions when requested." Does this apply to certain types of admin but not the role you are in? Forgive me if I have misinterpreted your position, I just want to understand what I’m allowed to understand, so I can figure out my next steps.

Thanks, Skubydoo (talk) 04:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. I believe my actions comply with the blocking policy and that the explanation I have provided above satisfies my obligations under ADMINACCT. I did not take any non-public information into account when making this block; I don't think a reviewing administrator would have any trouble reviewing the basis for this block even without supplemental explanation, but I will offer contextual information and analysis to any reviewing administrator who so requests on appeal. I am very much not required to tell you how to sock further by listing what factors were more and less probative, and my explanation above more than satisfies the requirements in policy. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Also: this is a fairly unimportant point, but your interpretation that all evidence must be reviewable by any concerned party (such as user accused.) is flatly contradicted by policy. Policy states that If a user needs to be blocked based on information that will not be made available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee or a checkuser or oversighter for action. (emphasis added). KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi KevinL, I understand that you have drawn a conclusion and feel you need to assert it, but your conclusion is wrong. If you will not provide me clear context with which to appeal the block, what do you propose as my next steps? Skubydoo (talk) 05:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, we disagree then. For more information on how to appeal a block, see WP:AAB and WP:GAB. If an uninvolved administrator agrees with you, you'll be unblocked. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

the full scope of my edit history should be considered. please see below. Skubydoo (talk) 09:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=the full scope of my edit history should be considered. please see below. [[User:Skubydoo|Skubydoo]] ([[User talk:Skubydoo#top|talk]]) 09:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=the full scope of my edit history should be considered. please see below. [[User:Skubydoo|Skubydoo]] ([[User talk:Skubydoo#top|talk]]) 09:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=the full scope of my edit history should be considered. please see below. [[User:Skubydoo|Skubydoo]] ([[User talk:Skubydoo#top|talk]]) 09:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Hi, I spent a good bit of time going through my own edit history to try and understand how I could be understood as a Sock. When considering what socks typically do, WP:SIMNAME, WP:PRECOCIOUS, WP:XS, WP:OVERBARN, WP:IDENTICAL and other common Sock behaviors, I came up with nothing.

There is a lot to discuss in relation to the unfounded accusations against me in this SPI, and I will do my best to be brief. *Please let me know if I can provide more information.* I am adding some examples here to show the depth and breadth of how much evidence there is to elucidate the facts which are that I am an individual, independent editor without any offline collaboration with Moksha88 or anyone else. I have also organized my thoughts under headings to make clear what points of the SPI I am referring to. The users who accused me of being a sock (Tamzin, Blablubbs, KevinL) did so on several problematic grounds.

1.) Assuming I'm a pharmacist and therefore that I must be linked to another accused sock who has stated they are a pharmacist

I created and edited a page 'Animal Products in Pharmaceuticals,' and was therefore imagined to be a pharmacist, which is similar to what they assumed about another user. I created this page because of my interest in animal rights. My edits illustrate this.

This discussion with another user Awkwafaba clearly shows that the article is not about pharmacy or any scientific inquiry. I'm not sure how or why one could assume I am a pharmacist based on this page (I am not one, to be clear).

When trying to submit the article, I was asked to include better sources, so I gave it my best humanities-based shot, since I do not come from a science background.

The submission was at first declined due to irrelevance. I thought that fortification would fit into an article about pharmaceuticals. (I still do, not sure how fortification is not related.)

As soon as it was declined, I went to the Animal Rights Wikiproject (not a pharmacy-related one) for help because I felt that their interests in animal rights would overlap with my interest in creating the article.

Clearly, I created Animal Products in Pharmaceuticals not because I am a pharmacist or understand pharmacy, but because of how the presence of animal products in pharmaceuticals is problematic for animal rights. Yet Blablubbs falsely asserted a connection between myself and another user based on this unfounded assumption.

2.) Singling out my edits to a few pages to create a false narrative about my alleged agenda as a sock

Less than 3.3% of edits had anything at all to do with Swaminarayan or BAPS. I have simply edited a variety of religion-related pages that interest me. I have made a lot of edits to religion related articles including a variety of pages about Hinduism generally, some Buddhism and Sikhism stuff, as well as Secularism. Yet, my edits to one particular religious tradition are being singled out.

Here is a sampling of my Hinduism related edits completely unrelated to the Swaminarayan denomination:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panchayatana_puja&diff=prev&oldid=932270408&diffmode=source
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bhagavan&diff=prev&oldid=933723096&diffmode=source
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sorimuthu_Ayyanar_Temple&diff=prev&oldid=933724869&diffmode=source
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libation&diff=prev&oldid=933726364&diffmode=source
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kumbhabhishekham&diff=prev&oldid=933752554&diffmode=source
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abhisheka&diff=prev&oldid=933753441&diffmode=source
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abhisheka&diff=prev&oldid=935028710&diffmode=source
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kumbhabhishekham&diff=prev&oldid=935030208&diffmode=source
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bhagavan&diff=prev&oldid=937109585&diffmode=source
10. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Growth_of_religion&diff=prev&oldid=938363335&diffmode=source
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Growth_of_religion&diff=prev&oldid=938363608&diffmode=source
12. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Growth_of_religion&diff=prev&oldid=939174310&diffmode=source
13. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Growth_of_religion&diff=prev&oldid=939176310&diffmode=source
14. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Growth_of_religion&diff=prev&oldid=939176533&diffmode=source
15. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keshava&diff=prev&oldid=939522257&diffmode=source
16. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bhiksha&diff=prev&oldid=940648530&diffmode=source
17. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bhiksha&diff=prev&oldid=940690211&diffmode=source
18. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gr%C4%81madevat%C4%81&diff=prev&oldid=940696175&diffmode=source
19. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hinduism&diff=prev&oldid=952722575&diffmode=source
20. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hinduism&diff=prev&oldid=952723240&diffmode=source
21. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hinduism&diff=prev&oldid=952723603&diffmode=source
22. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pinda_(riceball)&diff=prev&oldid=954156938&diffmode=source
23. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pinda_(riceball)&diff=prev&oldid=954163258&diffmode=source
24. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pinda_(riceball)&diff=prev&oldid=954163615&diffmode=source
25. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pinda_(riceball)&diff=prev&oldid=954164317&diffmode=source
26. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Growth_of_religion&diff=prev&oldid=961526779&diffmode=source
27. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Growth_of_religion&diff=prev&oldid=961527547&diffmode=source
28. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Growth_of_religion&diff=prev&oldid=961527689&diffmode=source
29. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bhairava&diff=prev&oldid=962071344&diffmode=source
30. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bhairava&diff=prev&oldid=962071477&diffmode=source
31. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bhairava&diff=prev&oldid=962071727&diffmode=source
32. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bhairava&diff=prev&oldid=962071945&diffmode=source

Here are some of my Buddhism edits:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Devaloka&diff=prev&oldid=964002894&diffmode=source
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Devaloka&diff=prev&oldid=964002952&diffmode=source
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Devaloka&diff=prev&oldid=965512828&diffmode=source
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Devaloka&diff=prev&oldid=964002952&diffmode=source
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Devaloka&diff=prev&oldid=964003078&diffmode=source
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Devaloka&diff=prev&oldid=964003539&diffmode=source
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Devaloka&diff=prev&oldid=964003690&diffmode=source
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Devaloka&diff=prev&oldid=964004016&diffmode=source
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Devaloka&diff=prev&oldid=964004234&diffmode=source
10. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Devaloka&diff=prev&oldid=965513111&diffmode=source
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Devaloka&diff=prev&oldid=965513308&diffmode=source
12. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Devaloka&diff=prev&oldid=965513404&diffmode=source
13. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buddha_Goraya&diff=prev&oldid=936152669&diffmode=source

And here, some Sikhism edits:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Growth_of_religion&diff=prev&oldid=955464757&diffmode=source
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Growth_of_religion&diff=prev&oldid=955465358&diffmode=source
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Growth_of_religion&diff=prev&oldid=955465758&diffmode=source
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Growth_of_religion&diff=prev&oldid=955466012&diffmode=source
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Growth_of_religion&diff=prev&oldid=955474025&diffmode=source
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Growth_of_religion&diff=prev&oldid=956727971&diffmode=source
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Growth_of_religion&diff=prev&oldid=956728286&diffmode=source
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Growth_of_religion&diff=prev&oldid=956728839&diffmode=source
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Growth_of_religion&diff=prev&oldid=956729341&diffmode=source

And finally, here are some secularism-related edits:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Secularism&diff=prev&oldid=956735092&diffmode=source
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Secularism&diff=prev&oldid=956736742&diffmode=source

My edits involving religion are quite broad, and none of those edits were considered in this SPI. Somehow, my edits to pages relating to one tradition in particular were misconstrued as an indication of being a Sock, despite the mountain of evidence (including my edit history) illustrating that I am just a Wikipedia user making edits based on my own interests, research, and understanding. I tried many times to talk to users on other talk pages, but no one ever responded to me (sad but true.)

I was happy to collaborate with another user on the animal products in pharmaceuticals article, and I followed their recommendations

But then on other pages, there wasn't much collaboration. I sent a message on the Keshava page but no one responded. I had the same problem with the Panchamrita and Bhairava, articles.

I found the NPOV noticeboard and was happy to find a place on Wikipedia where people engaged on a substantive, intellectual level. I participated there in the McKenzie methods discussion and Dr. Joseph Mercola discussion which intrigued me because of the controversy about medicine which aligned with the kind of head space I was in after doing Animal Products in Pharmaceuticals. I then went to Swaminarayan sampradaya discussion which I was drawn to given my aforementioned broader religious interests.

That's how I came to participate in/ "moderate" the discussion involving KBhatt22 at the Swaminarayan Sampradaya talk page. Finally, people were willing to have sustained intellectual discussions with me. (Very exciting!) I joined a discussion as a third party at Dispute resolution. And also moderated at the BAPS page for the first time. I continued to moderate discussions and engage other users, where I delved more deeply into sources about the tradition (because why not?) Here you can see how enthralled I was by the talk page discussion.

As my edits show, I came to be involved on Swaminarayan pages because of my own broader religious interests, and that this was the only place where other users wanted to engage in discussion with me. I participated in the RfD about the Swaminarayan Akshardham controversy because there was a redirect link in the page. I searched for Swaminarayan Akshardham and came across the page, and weighed in on the conversation.

3.) Unfounded assumption of behavioral similarities between me and other accused socks

Along with a POV narrative, much was made in the SPI about behavioral evidence that supposedly connects me to the other accused socks. If you take a closer look at any of my actual edits, the accusation that I am a sock doesn’t hold up for a second. My edit history shows that I have many diverse interests outside of this single Hindu tradition. If you look at my behavior, you won't find any clear patterns. When pinging users, I'm apparently a fan of variety. Typically, I copy the formatting someone in the conversation used in the previous post or whatever is top of mind in the moment. For example, Sulfurboy used Skubydoo then I used the same in September 2020, and again in May 2020.

Here I used: [[]]

I've also used pings as well as reply to , [[user:]] and {{user. There are also instances where I appear to be especially confused and use two methods at once.

I never could have imagined that any of this could be used to show I am connected with other users. I wish the users making the SPI accusations could have assumed good faith given my assorted editing history.

I assumed good faith in myself to make these observations. In other words, I didn’t think that I was trying to hurt Wikipedia, but knew that I was trying my best. I don’t think the users making these accusations were able to assume good faith for some reason, otherwise I’m sure they would have found these same things that are pervasive in my edit history.

Another thing I was accused of doing wrong was to supposedly cite policy in the same way as other users who were blocked. But again, I don't have one way of doing things. Parenthetical, non-parenthetical, linked, un-linked, with a space, without a space, with single brackets, double brackets...this was exhausting to look through.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Growth_of_religion&diff=prev&oldid=961527547&diffmode=source
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Growth_of_religion&type=revision&diff=961527689&oldid=961527547&diffmode=source
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Growth_of_religion&diff=next&oldid=961527689&diffmode=source
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=685985835&diffmode=source
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golden_State_Warriors&type=revision&diff=958239036&oldid=958238842&diffmode=source
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golden_State_Warriors&diff=next&oldid=958239814&diffmode=source
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swaminarayan&type=revision&diff=942215392&oldid=933581874&diffmode=source
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Serena_Williams&type=revision&diff=957348094&oldid=956830450&diffmode=source
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=968090622&diffmode=source
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swaminarayan_Sampradaya&diff=prev&oldid=968097784&diffmode=source
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pramukh_Swami_Maharaj&diff=prev&oldid=968098817&diffmode=source
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swaminarayan_Sampradaya&diff=prev&oldid=968239975&diffmode=source
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swaminarayan_Sampradaya&diff=prev&oldid=968399742&diffmode=source
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=970422234&diffmode=source
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swaminarayan_Sampradaya&diff=prev&oldid=976468970&diffmode=source
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swaminarayan_Sampradaya&diff=prev&oldid=977313958&diffmode=source
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swaminarayan_Sampradaya&diff=prev&oldid=978122473&diffmode=source
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swaminarayan_Sampradaya&diff=prev&oldid=978300253&diffmode=source
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swaminarayan_Sampradaya&diff=prev&oldid=979741872&diffmode=source
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swaminarayan_Sampradaya&diff=prev&oldid=979853224&diffmode=source

If you really take a comprehensive look at my edit history, you'll find a good deal of variety and no behavioral patterns with myself let alone any other user. There is nothing in my edit history to indicate that I am the same as another user.

My use of curly quotes is another example of supposed 'evidence' of my wrongdoing. Using curly quotes and apostrophes is considered, based on scant evidence, a similarity that supports the accusation that I am a sock. But I use curly quotes, straight quotes, even single quotes sometimes.

There have been extensive conversations about the use of straight and curly quotes, and as one user puts it, "I don't see how this can be enforceable either way, but personally I would object to smart quotes since it's too easy to do them wrong - both for newbies and for many computer programs." But I realize now that straight quotes are prescribed in the MOS. I know I erred in using curly quotes, so I would appreciate the opportunity to correct this instead of receiving this punitive response.

All in all, the evidence shows that I am a chaotic nerd who is looking for someone to talk to. Not a sock, although I understand how someone could think that if they also believe that those who write about non-Abrahamic faiths are more likely to have grammatically incorrect English. (An over-enthusiastic editor made the claim in this "investigation" that coherent English in Hinduism articles was evidence of sockpuppetry, as they grasped at straws for evidence of why I was the same as other editors.)

I have done a lot to try and be a good Wikipedian citizen, and so it's extremely disheartening to be accused of something I haven't done.

My edits are guided by how I read policy, and I'm always willing to take other user's ideas seriously. I try to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM whenever I can, and always with WP:ETIQUETTE. I'm never hostile towards other users. I write on behalf of myself and not behalf of anyone else.  

For example, I correct inaccuracies while keeping the remainder of the article intact:

• Prasada
• Animal Products in Pharmaceuticals

I also research and add sources for unsourced material:  

• Prasada
• Animal Products in Pharmaceuticals
• UN
• Swaminarayan

And finally, I leave you with some of my quality edits to illustrate that I am out here trying to make valuable contributions to better Wikipedia as a whole. I am not disruptive and I am not a Sock.  

• Convention on Marriage

• Social contract

• UN declaration

The above edits show that I am a legit, well-intentioned editor. The editors making accusations against me tried so hard to make me out to be an ill-intentioned sock.

I haven't been able to go through each accusation from the SPI in as much depth as I would have liked, for the sake of brevity. Please let me know if I can provide more information the erroneous arguments presented within this SPI. The arguments in this SPI for why I am a sock were: 1.) that I have "worked together" with these individuals for six years (which I definitely have not, as my edit history will show I've worked on some of these articles for a year or a year and a half, tops.) 2.) that I agree with the other users who are blocked, which, as I have shown, is not something that is unique to these pages, although I have disagreed with people on these pages on several occasions, 3.) the use of curly quotes and apostrophes, which I have shown is clearly an erroneous assumption based on the evidence in my edit history, 4.) that I can write in fluent English on Hinduism-related articles, which is an accusation I found deeply problematic, 5.) That I edited a pharmaceutical-related article, which makes me similar to another user who wrote something about pharmacy (the evidence of my edits and motivations for my edits speak for themselves), and 6.) that other users agreed with me, which is something I'm over-the-moon and thankful for. If you take a look at the evidence I've presented here, or my edit history in general, it's impossible to see me as a sock of another user. Please assume good faith and reconsider. Wikipedia is a great project and should not be destroyed by a punitive witch hunt held by those who hold power.Skubydoo (talk) 09:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

August Editathons with Women in Red

Women in Red | August 2021, Volume 7, Issue 8, Numbers 184, 188, 204, 205, 206, 207 Online events: New: Indigenous women | Women's leadership & empowerment Contest (Jul/Aug/Sep): Latin America contest Continuing: Olympic & Paralympic Games | Women's rights | #1day1woman See also: Interwiki Women Collaboration Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

September 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | September 2021, Volume 7, Issue 9, Numbers 184, 188, 204, 205, 207, 208 Online events: New: Women writers & their works Contest (Jul/Aug/Sep): Latin America contest Continuing: Women's leadership & empowerment | Olympic & Paralympic Games Women's rights | #1day1woman See also: Interwiki Women Collaboration Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Learn more about our proposed one-day online recruitment initiative in October. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow Women in Red on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

October 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | October 2021, Volume 7, Issue 10, Numbers 184, 188, 209, 210, 211 Online events: New: Women in STEM New Contest (Oct/Nov/Dec): Women in Oceania contest Continuing: Women's rights | #1day1woman Special event: 12 October: Ada Lovelace Day 24-Hour Global Edit-a-thon See also: Women in Green Good Article Edit-a-thon Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow Women in Red on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging