@Richard Nevell (WMUK):, I'm happy to help. I just wanted to clarify, this task force is for all COVID-related articles, not just limited to the UK, correct? I'm happy to help, but my knowledge of the situation in the UK is limited. Moksha88 (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
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.
I've re-opened the discussion regarding the category name change for the Swaminarayan sect of Hinduism category, as a previous participant, could you please weigh in? Apollo1203 (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, Moksha88. 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: Apollo1203, Skubydoo, 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)[reply]
My apologies, I accidentally clicked TWA while reviewing the SPI, not recognizing what it meant. In short, I am not affiliated with these accounts. I will review the SPI and respond there. Moksha88 (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moksha88! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
@L235:, could you clarify your decision, specifically what behavioral evidence warranted an indefinite block? I have not used or misused multiple accounts to “deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies” (WP:SOCK). I only use one account to edit in the spirit of Wikipedia.
In Temzin’s words, it seems that the core issue is whether there is a group of editors who edit Wikipedia in favor of “BAPS and associated entities” in opposition to a “rival anti-BAPS sockfarm.” I think this dichotimization is problematic. What does it mean to state “BAPS and associated entities”? The Swaminarayan Wikiproject encompasses a number of articles related to BAPS but also other topics relevant to Swaminarayan Hinduism. User:Swamiblue was identified as a sockpuppet by a checkuser utilizing technical evidence after they kept making disruptive edits to BAPS-related pages , and I helped prevent that from happening with much time and effort. Instead of appreciating the resultant positive contribution of those efforts to the Swaminarayan Wikiproject , it has been falsely framed as “editing in favor”.
My goal has been to improve the quality of these articles based on core policies. When I edited in opposition to a sockpuppet, it’s because they opposed Wikipedia policies, not because they opposed BAPS. I compiled the SPI against this user but also based by responses on policy alone. 12
The edits presented in the SPI are taken out of context. In the interest of brevity, I am listing out a few involving my interactions with Apollo1203, but I am happy to clarify others if you wish.
Apollo1203 suggested retitling the page. I agreed based on my independent research of the scholarly consensus.1
Apollo1203 removed details related to an organization within the Swaminarayan Sampradaya which did not meet WP:ORGCRIT. I reviewed and agreed. 2
When Apollo1203 opposed an editor who removed material that was referenced to reliable sources 3, I supported him. 4
Yes, we agree on points when they are supported by Wikipedia policies, and we also agree on points against editors who are editing against Wikipedia policies. Thus, editing in good faith according to Wikipedia policies has led me to be characterized as “always in agreement” with another user and therefore a sockpuppet. You previously defined the biggest challenge facing Wikipedia as the limited number of editors available to counter bad faith editing, and this decision makes it harder for me to help in this regard.
In reviewing the other evidence presented, the only other striking similarity highlighted by Tamzin and Blablubbs is that of language and geography. Wouldn’t English fluency match with an editing pattern that mirrors North America? I’m confused by how this highly circumstantial evidence merits an indefinite block.
One final clarification, I made one edit related to the entire Robbinsville incident, and I only did it to reduce wordiness, which I also explained here. Certainly, I added information related to the article which could be regarded as favorable, but it paralleled information included in the other temple articles which was in need of updating.[1][2][3][4][5]
It thus remains unclear to me what was the compelling behavioral evidence that has made you determine (unfortunately, quite incorrectly) that I am a sockpuppet, and I would appreciate your detailed response to this question. Moksha88 (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The core issue is not that there is a group of editors who edit Wikipedia in favor of “BAPS and associated entities” in opposition to a “rival anti-BAPS sockfarm.” The core issue is that it appears you and the other blocked accounts at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moksha88 are used by, or controlled by, the same person, or are otherwise coordinating off-wiki to that effect, exceeding the standard of proof to take action. The evidence in favor of this finding can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moksha88, and is also contained in your collective linguistic patterns. My guess is this answer will not satisfy you, but I am afraid it is the one I have for you. Best, KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 00:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@L235: No, this answer does offers me more insight than I previously had, and I took the time to understand the relevant policies before writing this response.
You noted, The core issue is that it appears you and the other blocked accounts at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moksha88 are used by, or controlled by, the same person, or are otherwise coordinating off-wiki to that effect, exceeding the standard of proof to take action.” You referenced Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moksha88 and highlighted "collective linguistic patterns.”
As you know, WP:SIM notes, “It is not uncommon for people to learn from the writing styles of others, or copy the techniques used by other editors often not known to the editor in question. Different users editing in a similar fashion may be reflective of what an editor learns simply from reading other articles.”
Over the years, I know I have learned from more experienced editors with whom I interacted on talk pages, and I assume that the patterns and practices in my edits may reflect this evolution. Similarly, other editors may have learned from my patterns and practices.
These were the specific linguistic patterns I found highlighted as evidence on the SPI:
Use of curly quotes/apostrophes
Citing policies using parentheses
Use of present participle in edit summaries
Clear, fluent English
My guess is that the first 3 “exceeded the standard proof to take action" since the last one is not linguistically uncommon in the English Wikipedia. Is that the case, or am I missing anything that Tamzin hasn’t mentioned that led you to block me?
Also, Of the 1585 edits I made before the block, how many were you able to review to verify if Tamzin’s accusation of overwhelmingly similar linguistic patterns between all of the blocked users was true? I ask because I am willing to verify this claim by reviewing all of my edits to identify linguistic differences, which when compared to the other blocked users, will negate this argument. I wanted to see if you have already done this exercise before the block was issued.
Hi Moksha88. For the reasons I gave in response to the other accounts I found to be your socks, I decline to further expound on which factors are more and less probative in this particular case, except to say that while the evidence presented in the SPI alone was sufficient to take action, I also considered linguistic similarities not listed by Tamzin in the SPI. I did not review each of your edits, but I looked at more than the edits listed at the SPI. I am happy to provide supplemental analysis to a reviewing administrator. Best, KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 21:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
