User talk:Apollo1203

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)

L235, I apologize for a delay in my response as I was away. I am shocked with this decision. As I read through the responses regarding the SPI, I am still left with many questions and quite confused.

I read through the response by Moksha88 and your reply thereafter where you state, "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.'" Yet it appears that Tamzin has indicated otherwise. For example, in the SPI discussions she has stated to users Joshua Jonathan and Kbhatt22 that this is POV-pushing [1][2]. Tamzin also states on the NPOV noticeboard that this is an issue of POV-pushing [3], as well as on KBhatt22’s talk page [4]. Are you disagreeing with Tamzin regarding POV-pushing? As you can imagine this is causing confusion and I can’t quite grasp the rationale for a block.

Please clarify what the exact core issue is here. You state that the evidence in favor of the block decision is found at the SPI, so among the evidence that was provided, which swayed your decision? Was it:

1. that the accounts have worked together for over 6 years? Even though my account has only been active since March 2019
2. me agreeing with other users who shared a similar point of view on topics?
3. my use of past participles in edit summaries?
4. was it that I have PCR rights?
5. collaborating on talk pages, which was interpreted as skewing talk pages?
6. because I voted on an RfD?
7. the style of quotes (curly vs. straight) used?
8. proficiency in the English language?
9. that sometimes I would not link my policy citations?
10. a similar sleep schedule?

A CheckUser resulted in no relation to the others, so what is the deciding factor here? I look forward to your response. Apollo1203 (talk) 02:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. The basis for my block was sockpuppetry. Absent sockpuppetry, POV pushing can also independently constitute grounds for a block or other restriction. However, the core issue in this case was sockpuppetry, so I didn't make any findings as to whether this account was also independently blockable for POV pushing. I considered several of the points that you listed, as well as other linguistic similarities, in coming to this decision. Like in many behavioral investigations, there is often not a single deciding factor or a single "but-for" cause. Rest assured that I came to this decision following careful consideration over the course of several weeks. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

L235, thank you for the response and clarity. Previously there seemed to be ambiguity whether the cause for a block was sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, but you have made it clear the block was based on sockpuppetry, not meatpuppetry.

I know you’re quite busy, but can you please let me know which reasons Tamzins provided were relevant or not? Above, I’ve added numbers to the list of Tamzin's reasons so you can provide the numbers. By understanding which reasons were most relevant, it will help me in not only analyzing my actions which lead to this block, but it will also help write my appeal. I look forward to your response. Apollo1203 (talk) 12:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

This may have been another miscommunication. As I wrote at the SPI, I have not made a finding that this is sockpuppetry over meatpuppetry; when I referenced "sockpuppetry" above here, I meant that this block is for a violation of the sockpuppetry policy (as opposed to simply for POV pushing). For the reviewing administrator: my working hypothesis is that these are a number of individuals working closely together (closer than an ordinary meatpuppetry case, perhaps with one person directing the exact edits the others should make on a Google Doc), but both pure sockpuppetry and ordinary meatpuppetry are also quite possible.

As for your question about which factors were more relevant: 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) 18:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

L235, I read through the essay you linked and I understand the premise, however, I do not think it is applicable in my case here. I was only asking you to verify the most pressing issues based on Tamzin’s findings, not cite new or other reasons. Unless you are saying there are other reasons outside of what she has stated that are the reason for the block? The intent of my account was to create and improve articles with reliable and encylcopedic material. If you look through the edit history, you will see that I did not push a POV but use reliable and academic sources to state the facts listed within those sources. In fact, I just noticed a merge Tamzin did with the Akshardham (religion) article to Akshar Purushottam Darshan. In her edit summary, she states “all recent edits were from sockpuppets (WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Moksha88), and before they showed up it was actually even worse.” Tamzin is indicating that my edits (and Moksha88 who edited as well) actually began to improve the article? So again, my intent of joining Wikipedia and editing was for the sole purpose of improvements and creating encyclopedic content. If you could please shed more clarity on the block, it will help me in my appeal and show that I am a distinct editor and my behavior is in fact completely different from Moksha88. Looking forward to hearing from you. Apollo1203 (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. This will be my final message on this talk page prior to an appeal: I will not be providing more extensive analysis except by email to a reviewing administrator for the reasons above and given on the four other talk pages at which you have been asking me questions. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I have been wrongfully blocked as a sockpuppet/meatpuppet and below are my points addressing the 6 sockpuppet accusations by Tamzin.
Sockpuppetry
I am not a sockpuppet and I have not misused multiple Wikipedia accounts. First, the CheckUser proved that I am not associated with the other editors listed in the SPI. [5] My activity and edit history show that I am dissimilar to and distinct from Moksha88, and every user stated in the SPI. For example, after I joined Wikipedia in 2019, I primarily edited music-related articles. [6][7][8][9] Thereafter, I began editing Hinduism, more specifically Swaminarayan-related, articles. Many of these articles presented the opportunity for significant improvements.
1. Tamzin's accusation: "Agreeing with users" and "messaging back and forth"
As I began working on the Swaminarayan articles, I encountered editors that shared the same goal to improve and enhance the article's encyclopedic value. I joined the Swaminarayan Wikiproject [10] and I announced my intent to improve the Vachanamrut article and invited other members of the Wikiproject to contribute at their convenience. [11] Through my continued efforts on improving Swaminarayan-related articles, I met user Moksha88 and others such as, ThaNDNman224, Harshmellow717, Skubydoo, Kbhatt22, and Joshua Jonathan.
Tamzin calls out an instance where Moksha88 agrees with me for proposing an article rename ("Sampraday" to "Sampradaya.")[12]. The rationale for such change was based on academic publications and the n-gram,[13] which shows that the spelling as 'Sampradaya' is more prominent. Moksha88 agreeing with this change shows that this user checked my work and agreed with the name change. I learned about this method of suggesting an article rename when I updated the Amir Khusrau title [14]. Tamzin argues the discussion Moksha88 and I had regarding academic and reliable sources is violating policy, yet no policy states this is illegal. [15] As stated in the SPI, there are times where I agreed with Moksha88 and sometimes I did not. If the arguments, edits, or suggestions another user makes are supported with Wikipedia policy, I cannot disagree with them. Similarly, if my edits and/or suggestions are within the rules, other good faith users would tend to agree with them as well. Based on the policy of user talk pages, interacting with users to inform them on articles or other updates is not violating policy. This was the only type of communication I had with Moksha88 or other editors. As my activity on Wikipedia increased, I also encountered editors who did not agree with my edits. Even though it was not always reciprocated, [16][17] I always engaged with them civilly and ensured my edit rationale was in Wikipedia policy (such as the use of reliable sources, no original research, reaching consensus on talk pages). A few times I even collaborated with such editors to improve articles and ensure they were also following Wikipedia policies. With the logic provided by Tamzin in the SPI about interacting with other editors, Kbhatt22 and Joshua Jonathan should also be indicted as sockpuppets or meatpuppets, but that makes no sense.
2. Tamzin's accusation: Use of straight quotes
Initially, I directly edited articles without using external tools to check grammar or spelling [18][19] However, I realized to significantly improve articles, I needed to ensure my writing was devoid of error(s), specifically, grammatical, spelling, and formatting errors. To do so, I utilized two resources: Grammarly and Microsoft Word. When I copy-pasted my work, curly quotes would appear. I checked Wikipedia policies and the use of grammatical and spelling tools is not prohibited. As Talk Page posts were typically informal discussions, I did not utilize external tools therefore straight quotes are seen. If you take a look at many of my edits, I use straight quotes very commonly.
Some examples of this are: [20][21][22][23][24][25] [26][27][28][29][30] [31][32] [33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] However, there were instances where thorough responses were required in which I utilized the tools mentioned. I've typically responded in great detail regarding the sources and material found in the reliable sources – a distinct feature of mine versus Moksha88.[46][47]
3. Tamzin's accusation of "parenthetical policy-shortcut references, often unlinked"
Tamzin seems to be convinced that I share with Moksha88 a particular tendency to incorporate parenthetical policy short cuts that aren't linked, but her accusation isn't consistent with my edit history. Some edits I pulled from my history include edits where I link the policy without parenthesis, times where I have linked a policy with parenthesis, and incidents where I have a blend of the both.
Some examples of this are:
Linking policy without parenthesis:[48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68]
Linking policy with parenthesis:[69][70][71][72][73][74]
Unlinked without parenthesis:[75][76][77]
The above examples show that the majority of my policy references in my edits are linked, significantly different than Moksha88:[78][79][80][81]
4. Tamzin's accusation of piped username linking
Tamzin and Blablubbs believe another reason for my involvement with the accused sockpuppet farm is because "many accounts use pipe links to ping", which I found to also be untrue in my case. I've listed countless incidents where a piped username linking was not found: [82][83][84][85][86][87][88] [89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126][127][128][129][130][131][132][133][134][135][136]
Again, my edit history shows that this claim by Tamzin does not hold true.
5. Tamzin's accusation – similar time stamps
Sharing a similar time stamp of edits seems more likely than not as 20% of Wikipedia editors reside in the United States. The CheckUser on my account indicates I am located in the United States, which would make sense for my time stamp to fit the time Tamzin has mentioned. Therefore, this argument lacks relevance in the sockpuppet and meatpuppet accusation.
6. Tamzin's accusation – speech register
Tamzin cited English proficiency as evidence of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. As stated above, I reside in the United States, and utilize tools such as Grammarly and Microsoft Word to ensure my writing was refined. There is no policy that states the use of grammatically correct English demonstrates sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. Thus, the propounded evidence in the allegation is baseless and unfounded.
In summary, Tamzin has accused me of:
1. Messaging and talking back and forth with users – which I refuted by showing the discussions were strictly in adherence with policy and not to influence opinions
2. Using straight quotes vs. curly quotes – which I refuted by showing why and how I had used both
3. Parenthetical policy-shortcut references, often unlinked - which I refuted by showing that I typically link policy references, distinct from Moksha88.
4. Piped username linking - which I refuted by showing numerous examples contrary to the accused behavior.
5. Similar time stamps – which I refuted by showing statistically it is not unlikely that a handful of users could be from North America and share the same time frame of editing.
6. Proficiency in the English language – which I refuted by stating that I reside in the United States and use tools to check and correct grammar.
Tamzin has not properly examined the evidence, but after I did, there are no clear similarities that she claims. Moreover, a proper examination should not just look at the potential similarities between users that suggest sockpuppetry, but also it must examine if there are significant differences between two (or more) users that would refute sockpuppetry. Only after examining both sides could one objectively make accusations of sockpuppetry.

Tamzin did not look at differences, that indicate that the editors are distinct, so below I indicate some distinctive stylistic features that I have which show I am an independent user, and not a sockpuppet:
1. When I first joined Wikipedia, I was still familiarizing myself with the syntax and common practices used. These growing pains are clearly evident with the basic errors I initially made, which an experienced user like Moksha88 clearly did not make in 2019, suggesting that we are independent users:
1a. Formatting:[137][138][139][140][141]
1b. Asking for guidance from others:[142]
1c. Minor mistakes such as forgetting to sign my posts:[143][144][145][146][147][148][149][150][151][152]
1d. Incorrectly capitalizing title:[153][154][155][156][157]
1e. Understanding the use of reliable and correct sources:[158]
2. I tend to use a numbered list to explain my points, which Moksha88 does not do, indicating that I am an independent editor:[159][160][161][162][163][164][165][166][167]
3. I had an inclination to clean and organize reference lists, a habit that is definitely unique to me amongst the people in the SPI, suggesting that I am an independent editor:[168][169]
4. I studied the correct method to transliterate indic text (Gujarati and Sanskrit text) into English and corrected errors, which others in the SPI didn't do suggesting I am an independent editor:[170][171]
5. Initially, I did not ping users during talk pages. Moksha88's edit history shows proficiency in tagging/pinging users, well before I joined Wikipedia. When I began heavily engaging with users like Joshua Jonathan, almost a year after joining, I learned the correct way to ping users:[172][173][174][175][176][177][178][179][180][181][182][183][184][185][186][187][188][189][190][191][192][193][194][195][196][197][198][199][200][201][202][203][204][205][206][207][208]
6. When I referenced the Vachanamrut text, I wrote the references in a unique manner compared to Moksha88. This difference suggests that I am an independent editor:[209][210][211]

In summary, my edit history shows unique and distinct features such as:
1. Elementary mistakes as I was becoming more familiar with editing on Wikipedia.
2. The tendency to use numbered lists to show the main points in a discussion.
3. Habitually cleaning and formatting references to maintain a clean article reference section.
4. Correct transliterations of indic text, specifically Gujarati and Sanskrit words.
5. The transition and distinct style of pinging users once I became familiar with the method.
6. Referencing the Vachanamrut text in a specific manner, distinct from how Moksha88 has done.

The blocking admin did not clearly explain the reason(s) for the block, therefore, I have attempted to address what I believe to be the main causes. Above, I extensively proved how I am a distinct and independent editor through many examples and distinct features. I believe a main reason I am being accused of being a meatpuppet is because a group of editors share a POV and are allegedly pushing this POV.

Now, I will address the accusations of meatpuppetry and POV-pushing below.
Accusation: Meatpuppetry
Pursuant to WP:Meat, a meatpuppet is defined as "one who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose..." The numerous examples provided in this appeal show that I did not engage in the same behavior as the accused 'master' Moksha88. I skimmed through Moksha88's edit history, and the user has been editing quite longer than me, has a presence on medical-related articles, and has not influenced my editing. As stated by the policy and examples, the accusations of meatpuppetry are null. The harsh accusation of meatpuppetry also implies that I am attempting to "game the system." Based on this guideline [212], I have not made bad faith edits or violate Wikipedia's core principles. I have not influenced vote stacking or any manipulation of policy to make an edit. Each of my edits and opinions on talk pages were based on Wikipedia policies, and which I explained. Therefore, my contribution has not been to disrupt, but improve Wikipedia.
Accusation: POV-Pushing
My edits and contributions were based on reliable and academic sources, not 'partisan' sources which could skew the content.

1. For example, I removed honorifics in Swaminarayan/BAPS Swaminarayan related articles, ensuring that information that is published on Wikipedia aligns with its policy MOS:HONOR:[213][214][215][216][217][218][219][220][221]
2. When POV-pushing unknown IPs or users made edits against policy, I would revert them and try to help the users understand how to abide by policy. When individuals that would push a pro-BAPS POV without reliable sources, I would I reverted them and help users understand how to abide by policy.[222][223][224]
3. I would analyze all viewpoints before making any edits or suggestion. I would not cherry-pick from sources to favor a certain claim.[225]
4. There were users who would cherry-pick information from sources and/or remove reliable sources violating Wikipedia policy. By definition this is vandalism and pushing their own POV, however, I would engage with these users and in a civil manner attempt to help them understand why their actions were not valid [226][227] [228] This link is an example of a POV being pushed by cherry-picked information from an unreliable source. [229] This link is aanother example of POV and cherry-picked information regarding the philosophical foundations. However, I ensured I engaged with the user civilly and in an extremely thorough manner to explain why I believed my stance was correct, even if I was not returned the courtesy.[230]
5. I collectively worked with users who had other points of view. For example, I worked with user Kbhatt22 to improve the Swaminarayan Sampradaya article: [231][232]. This is an example of extensive discussion and collaboration on pictures on the article: [233]. Discussion between Joshua Jonathan and myself in trying to reach consensus: [234][235]. Kbhatt22 and Joshua Jonathan agreeing with my edits:[236]. Collaboration with Joshua Jonathan to improve the article where he again compliments my updates/edits:[237] (working on images for the article with all users).

A major issue with the accusation of POV-pushing is the premise that one (or multiple individuals) cannot have a verifiably established and common point of view. My edits were all supported by reliable sources (as per policy) and not cherry-picked, therefore, not pushing any specific POV. For example, an experienced editor had initially made this accusation against me, however, after examining the sources more closely, the editor apologized and acknowledged the contributions I made to significantly improve the Swaminarayan Sampradaya article. User Tamzin made a similar comment. In her edit summary she states that ‘sockpuppets’ improved the article, which I assume she is referring to myself or to Moksha88 as we both had made such edits.[238] After analyzing my activity under the standard of the sockpuppet policy, I can confidently say that I have not made problematic edits as an IP address, I have only operated one active account, I have never used another editor’s account, and I have never spoken with any known or unknown persons to create a shared account. Based on the sockpuppetry policy, the Checkuser evidence, and my unique and distinct activity on Wikipedia, I refute any claim of being a sockpuppet of Moksha88. Since joining Wikipedia in 2019, my goal as an editor has always been to improve the encyclopedic value of articles, and my activity substantially reflects. In fact, the users who have accused me of various infractions have complimented my work. I hope that you favorably consider my case and allow me to continue contributing to the bank of knowledge found in Wikipedia while defending its principles Apollo1203 (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC) |decline = Procedural decline; WP:WALLOFTEXT. Yamla (talk) 10:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)}}

Yamla; I have restructured the appeal above for ease of reading. Due to the nature of this block, I had to address each point. Apollo1203 (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

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:
I have been wrongfully blocked as a sockpuppet/meatpuppet and below are my points addressing the 6 sockpuppet accusations by Tamzin.
Sockpuppetry
I am not a sockpuppet and I have not misused multiple Wikipedia accounts. First, the CheckUser proved that I am not associated with the other editors listed in the SPI. [239] My activity and edit history show that I am dissimilar to and distinct from Moksha88, and every user stated in the SPI. For example, after I joined Wikipedia in 2019, I primarily edited music-related articles. [240][241][242][243] Thereafter, I began editing Hinduism, more specifically Swaminarayan-related, articles. Many of these articles presented the opportunity for significant improvements.
1. Tamzin's accusation: "Agreeing with users" and "messaging back and forth"
As I began working on the Swaminarayan articles, I encountered editors that shared the same goal to improve and enhance the article's encyclopedic value. I joined the Swaminarayan Wikiproject [244] and I announced my intent to improve the Vachanamrut article and invited other members of the Wikiproject to contribute at their convenience. [245] Through my continued efforts on improving Swaminarayan-related articles, I met user Moksha88 and others such as, ThaNDNman224, Harshmellow717, Skubydoo, Kbhatt22, and Joshua Jonathan.
Tamzin calls out an instance where Moksha88 agrees with me for proposing an article rename ("Sampraday" to "Sampradaya.")[246]. The rationale for such change was based on academic publications and the n-gram,[247] which shows that the spelling as 'Sampradaya' is more prominent. Moksha88 agreeing with this change shows that this user checked my work and agreed with the name change. I learned about this method of suggesting an article rename when I updated the Amir Khusrau title [248]. Tamzin argues the discussion Moksha88 and I had regarding academic and reliable sources is violating policy, yet no policy states this is illegal. [249] As stated in the SPI, there are times where I agreed with Moksha88 and sometimes I did not. If the arguments, edits, or suggestions another user makes are supported with Wikipedia policy, I cannot disagree with them. Similarly, if my edits and/or suggestions are within the rules, other good faith users would tend to agree with them as well. Based on the policy of user talk pages, interacting with users to inform them on articles or other updates is not violating policy. This was the only type of communication I had with Moksha88 or other editors. As my activity on Wikipedia increased, I also encountered editors who did not agree with my edits. Even though it was not always reciprocated, [250][251] I always engaged with them civilly and ensured my edit rationale was in Wikipedia policy (such as the use of reliable sources, no original research, reaching consensus on talk pages). A few times I even collaborated with such editors to improve articles and ensure they were also following Wikipedia policies. With the logic provided by Tamzin in the SPI about interacting with other editors, Kbhatt22 and Joshua Jonathan should also be indicted as sockpuppets or meatpuppets, but that makes no sense.
2. Tamzin's accusation: Use of straight quotes
Initially, I directly edited articles without using external tools to check grammar or spelling [252][253] However, I realized to significantly improve articles, I needed to ensure my writing was devoid of error(s), specifically, grammatical, spelling, and formatting errors. To do so, I utilized two resources: Grammarly and Microsoft Word. When I copy-pasted my work, curly quotes would appear. I checked Wikipedia policies and the use of grammatical and spelling tools is not prohibited. As Talk Page posts were typically informal discussions, I did not utilize external tools therefore straight quotes are seen. If you take a look at many of my edits, I use straight quotes very commonly.
Some examples of this are: [254][255][256][257][258][259] [260][261][262][263][264] [265][266] [267][268][269][270][271][272][273][274][275][276][277][278][279] However, there were instances where thorough responses were required in which I utilized the tools mentioned. I've typically responded in great detail regarding the sources and material found in the reliable sources – a distinct feature of mine versus Moksha88.[280][281]
3. Tamzin's accusation of "parenthetical policy-shortcut references, often unlinked"
Tamzin seems to be convinced that I share with Moksha88 a particular tendency to incorporate parenthetical policy short cuts that aren't linked, but her accusation isn't consistent with my edit history. Some edits I pulled from my history include edits where I link the policy without parenthesis, times where I have linked a policy with parenthesis, and incidents where I have a blend of the both.
Some examples of this are:
Linking policy without parenthesis:[282][283][284][285][286][287][288][289][290][291][292][293][294][295][296][297][298][299][300][301][302]
Linking policy with parenthesis:[303][304][305][306][307][308]
Unlinked without parenthesis:[309][310][311]
The above examples show that the majority of my policy references in my edits are linked, significantly different than Moksha88:[312][313][314][315]
4. Tamzin's accusation of piped username linking
Tamzin and Blablubbs believe another reason for my involvement with the accused sockpuppet farm is because "many accounts use pipe links to ping", which I found to also be untrue in my case. I've listed countless incidents where a piped username linking was not found: [316][317][318][319][320][321][322] [323][324][325][326][327][328][329][330][331][332][333][334][335][336][337][338][339][340][341][342][343][344][345][346][347][348][349][350][351][352][353][354][355][356][357][358][359][360][361][362][363][364][365][366][367][368][369][370]
Again, my edit history shows that this claim by Tamzin does not hold true.
5. Tamzin's accusation – similar time stamps
Sharing a similar time stamp of edits seems more likely than not as 20% of Wikipedia editors reside in the United States. The CheckUser on my account indicates I am located in the United States, which would make sense for my time stamp to fit the time Tamzin has mentioned. Therefore, this argument lacks relevance in the sockpuppet and meatpuppet accusation.
6. Tamzin's accusation – speech register
Tamzin cited English proficiency as evidence of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. As stated above, I reside in the United States, and utilize tools such as Grammarly and Microsoft Word to ensure my writing was refined. There is no policy that states the use of grammatically correct English demonstrates sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. Thus, the propounded evidence in the allegation is baseless and unfounded.

In summary, Tamzin has accused me of:
1. Messaging and talking back and forth with users – which I refuted by showing the discussions were strictly in adherence with policy and not to influence opinions
2. Using straight quotes vs. curly quotes – which I refuted by showing why and how I had used both
3. Parenthetical policy-shortcut references, often unlinked - which I refuted by showing that I typically link policy references, distinct from Moksha88.
4. Piped username linking - which I refuted by showing numerous examples contrary to the accused behavior.
5. Similar time stamps – which I refuted by showing statistically it is not unlikely that a handful of users could be from North America and share the same time frame of editing.
6. Proficiency in the English language – which I refuted by stating that I reside in the United States and use tools to check and correct grammar.
Tamzin has not properly examined the evidence, but after I did, there are no clear similarities that she claims. Moreover, a proper examination should not just look at the potential similarities between users that suggest sockpuppetry, but also it must examine if there are significant differences between two (or more) users that would refute sockpuppetry. Only after examining both sides could one objectively make accusations of sockpuppetry.

Tamzin did not look at differences, that indicate that the editors are distinct, so below I indicate some distinctive stylistic features that I have which show I am an independent user, and not a sockpuppet:
1. When I first joined Wikipedia, I was still familiarizing myself with the syntax and common practices used. These growing pains are clearly evident with the basic errors I initially made, which an experienced user like Moksha88 clearly did not make in 2019, suggesting that we are independent users:
1a. Formatting:[371][372][373][374][375]
1b. Asking for guidance from others:[376]
1c. Minor mistakes such as forgetting to sign my posts:[377][378][379][380][381][382][383][384][385][386]
1d. Incorrectly capitalizing title:[387][388][389][390][391]
1e. Understanding the use of reliable and correct sources:[392]
2. I tend to use a numbered list to explain my points, which Moksha88 does not do, indicating that I am an independent editor:[393][394][395][396][397][398][399][400][401]
3. I had an inclination to clean and organize reference lists, a habit that is definitely unique to me amongst the people in the SPI, suggesting that I am an independent editor:[402][403]
4. I studied the correct method to transliterate indic text (Gujarati and Sanskrit text) into English and corrected errors, which others in the SPI didn't do suggesting I am an independent editor:[404][405]
5. Initially, I did not ping users during talk pages. Moksha88's edit history shows proficiency in tagging/pinging users, well before I joined Wikipedia. When I began heavily engaging with users like Joshua Jonathan, almost a year after joining, I learned the correct way to ping users:[406][407][408][409][410][411][412][413][414][415][416][417][418][419][420][421][422][423][424][425][426][427][428][429][430][431][432][433][434][435][436][437][438][439][440][441][442]
6. When I referenced the Vachanamrut text, I wrote the references in a unique manner compared to Moksha88. This difference suggests that I am an independent editor:[443][444][445]

In summary, my edit history shows unique and distinct features such as:
1. Elementary mistakes as I was becoming more familiar with editing on Wikipedia.
2. The tendency to use numbered lists to show the main points in a discussion.
3. Habitually cleaning and formatting references to maintain a clean article reference section.
4. Correct transliterations of indic text, specifically Gujarati and Sanskrit words.
5. The transition and distinct style of pinging users once I became familiar with the method.
6. Referencing the Vachanamrut text in a specific manner, distinct from how Moksha88 has done.

The blocking admin did not clearly explain the reason(s) for the block, therefore, I have attempted to address what I believe to be the main causes. Above, I extensively proved how I am a distinct and independent editor through many examples and distinct features. I believe a main reason I am being accused of being a meatpuppet is because a group of editors share a POV and are allegedly pushing this POV.

Now, I will address the accusations of meatpuppetry and POV-pushing below.
Accusation: Meatpuppetry
Pursuant to WP:Meat, a meatpuppet is defined as "one who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose..." The numerous examples provided in this appeal show that I did not engage in the same behavior as the accused 'master' Moksha88. I skimmed through Moksha88's edit history, and the user has been editing quite longer than me, has a presence on medical-related articles, and has not influenced my editing. As stated by the policy and examples, the accusations of meatpuppetry are null. The harsh accusation of meatpuppetry also implies that I am attempting to "game the system." Based on this guideline [446], I have not made bad faith edits or violate Wikipedia's core principles. I have not influenced vote stacking or any manipulation of policy to make an edit. Each of my edits and opinions on talk pages were based on Wikipedia policies, and which I explained. Therefore, my contribution has not been to disrupt, but improve Wikipedia.
Accusation: POV-Pushing
My edits and contributions were based on reliable and academic sources, not 'partisan' sources which could skew the content.

1. For example, I removed honorifics in Swaminarayan/BAPS Swaminarayan related articles, ensuring that information that is published on Wikipedia aligns with its policy MOS:HONOR:[447][448][449][450][451][452][453][454][455]
2. When POV-pushing unknown IPs or users made edits against policy, I would revert them and try to help the users understand how to abide by policy. When individuals that would push a pro-BAPS POV without reliable sources, I would I reverted them and help users understand how to abide by policy.[456][457][458]
3. I would analyze all viewpoints before making any edits or suggestion. I would not cherry-pick from sources to favor a certain claim.[459]
4. There were users who would cherry-pick information from sources and/or remove reliable sources violating Wikipedia policy. By definition this is vandalism and pushing their own POV, however, I would engage with these users and in a civil manner attempt to help them understand why their actions were not valid [460][461] [462] This link is an example of a POV being pushed by cherry-picked information from an unreliable source. [463] This link is aanother example of POV and cherry-picked information regarding the philosophical foundations. However, I ensured I engaged with the user civilly and in an extremely thorough manner to explain why I believed my stance was correct, even if I was not returned the courtesy.[464]
5. I collectively worked with users who had other points of view. For example, I worked with user Kbhatt22 to improve the Swaminarayan Sampradaya article: [465][466]. This is an example of extensive discussion and collaboration on pictures on the article: [467]. Discussion between Joshua Jonathan and myself in trying to reach consensus: [468][469]. Kbhatt22 and Joshua Jonathan agreeing with my edits:[470]. Collaboration with Joshua Jonathan to improve the article where he again compliments my updates/edits:[471] (working on images for the article with all users).

A major issue with the accusation of POV-pushing is the premise that one (or multiple individuals) cannot have a verifiably established and common point of view. My edits were all supported by reliable sources (as per policy) and not cherry-picked, therefore, not pushing any specific POV. For example, an experienced editor had initially made this accusation against me, however, after examining the sources more closely, the editor apologized and acknowledged the contributions I made to significantly improve the Swaminarayan Sampradaya article. User Tamzin made a similar comment. In her edit summary she states that ‘sockpuppets’ improved the article, which I assume she is referring to myself or to Moksha88 as we both had made such edits.[472] After analyzing my activity under the standard of the sockpuppet policy, I can confidently say that I have not made problematic edits as an IP address, I have only operated one active account, I have never used another editor’s account, and I have never spoken with any known or unknown persons to create a shared account. Based on the sockpuppetry policy, the Checkuser evidence, and my unique and distinct activity on Wikipedia, I refute any claim of being a sockpuppet of Moksha88. Since joining Wikipedia in 2019, my goal as an editor has always been to improve the encyclopedic value of articles, and my activity substantially reflects. In fact, the users who have accused me of various infractions have complimented my work. I hope that you favorably consider my case and allow me to continue contributing to the bank of knowledge found in Wikipedia while defending its principles.

I reposted my appeal - which has been formatted for ease of reading - to address the accusations in detail. I am requesting an admin to please read through my appeal and reconsider. Apollo1203 (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Do not e-mail me again.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed

Hello Apollo1203! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)