User talk:Skubydoo

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:

Summarized my appeal, again. please see below. Skubydoo (talk) 05:42, 10 November 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=Summarized my appeal, again. please see below. [[User:Skubydoo|Skubydoo]] ([[User talk:Skubydoo#top|talk]]) 05:42, 10 November 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=Summarized my appeal, again. please see below. [[User:Skubydoo|Skubydoo]] ([[User talk:Skubydoo#top|talk]]) 05:42, 10 November 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=Summarized my appeal, again. please see below. [[User:Skubydoo|Skubydoo]] ([[User talk:Skubydoo#top|talk]]) 05:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

To briefly summarize, the apparent main reasons why I should be unblocked are because the users who accused me:

1.) Falsely claimed I was a pharmacist and so I must be the sock of another accused editor who had stated they were a pharmacist. 2.) Singled out my relatively few edits to Swaminarayan pages from my much broader array of edits to create a false narrative about my alleged agenda as a sock. 3.) Made unfounded claims of behavioral similarities between me and other accused socks.

I dive into each of these points specifically below with more information and evidence.

1.) The users who accused me falsely claimed that I was a pharmacist and so I must be the sock of another accused editor who had stated they were a pharmacist.

I created and edited a page 'Animal Products in Pharmaceuticals.' The accusers pointed to this to falsely claim that I am a pharmacist. However, my edits to the page show my focus to be on religious dietary restrictions and animal rights rather than on pharmaceutical matters. Later, I also mention my lack of scientific expertise no the talk page of another user, Awkwafaba. When trying to submit the article, I was asked to include better sources, so I gave it my best shot, since I do not come from a science background. The submission was first declined due to irrelevance and as soon as it was declined, I went to the Animal Rights Wikiproject (not a pharmacy-related one) for help because I felt their interests in animal rights would overlap with my interest in creating the article.

Clearly, I created Animal Products in Pharmaceuticals article not because I am a pharmacist or understand pharmacy, but because of how the presence of animal products in pharmaceuticals is problematic for both animal rights and religious freedom. Yet Blablubbs falsely asserted (in line 62) a connection between me and another accuser users based on this unfounded assumption.

2.) The accusers singled out my relatively few edits to Swaminarayan pages from my much broader variety of edits to create a false narrative about my alleged agenda as a sock.

Less than 3.3% of the pages I've edited have had anything at all to do with Swaminarayan or BAPS. I have simply edited a variety of pages that interest me.

I have edited many Hinduism-related pages which are completely unrelated to the Swaminarayan denomination, including Bhagavan, Abhishek, Growth of religion, Pinda (rice ball), and Hinduism. I have also edited pages related to Buddhism, Sikhism, and even secularism.

Yet, my edits to one particular religious tradition are being singled out by the accusers.

My edits involving religion are quite broad, and none of those edits were considered in this SPI. Somehow, my edits relating to one tradition in particular were misconstrued as indicative of me 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 responded to me (sad but true.) 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 McKenzie methods discussion, Dr. Joseoph Mercola discussion, and then 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 invovlving 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.

I continued to moderate discussions and engage other users, where I delved more deeply into sources about the Swaminarayan tradition (because why not?) and was enthralled by the talk page discussion.

I searched for Swaminarayan Akshardham and came across the page after it was in the news, and weighed in on the conversation. I later participated in the RfD about the Swaminarayan Akshardham controversy because there was a redirect link in the page.

As my edits show, I came to be involved on Swaminarayan pages because of my own broader religious interests. When some users engaged in intellectual conversations with me, that enticed me to learn more. This is a fascinating topic that doesn't deserve to be bent for the sake of a negative POV. (I didn't speak disparagingly of this or any other religious tradition, which is apparently what makes me similar to these other users.)

3.) The users who accused me cited 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 other accused socks. If you look at my behavior, you won't find any clear patterns at all.

Pinging 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. Sulfurboy used Skubydoo then I used the same in September 2020, and went back to it again in May 2021. Here I used [[]], then ping, reply to, and {{user.

Sometimes I appear to be especially confused and use two methods at once.

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

Citing Policy Another thing I was accused of doing wrong was to supposedly cit 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, without a space, with double brackets ...this was exhausting to look through.

I guess I was always more invested in the content rather than the formatting when I was making edits. I didn't realize it was a big deal, honestly. 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 to indicate here that I am the same as another user.

Quotes 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." I realize now that straight quotes are prescribed as per the MOS. I know I erred in using curly quotes. I would appreciate the opportunity to correct them instead of this punitive response.

Conclusion

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 for 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, 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 edits 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 on behalf of anyone else. I can provide more evidence to disprove any of the arguments made against me.

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 punitive 'investigations' held by those who hold power.