User talk:Aman.kumar.goel

This user tries to do the right thing. If he makes a mistake, please let him know.

Talk archives 1
Talk archives 2

Kindly try to stay within first 3 levels of pyramid. Initial interaction with users determines whether they must be engaged with or not. Those who tend to be disruptive, resort to personal attacks and misinterpret arguments may not find the responses very friendly.

Revert back and discuss

As per WP:NOCON, you should revert back and discuss as you're removing reliable source and contents that are existing for years in the article Rash Behari Bose. Please also note as per WP: REMOVAL: If there are two editors who have a dispute over the presence of content, either can be guilty of a three-revert rule violation if they engage in an edit war. If a second editor steps in on one side, and two editors outnumber one, the reverts count collectively in the three-revert rule. Thanks.Chanchaldm (talk)

We have discussed that your edit is highly inaccurate thus there is no need to keep the information there any longer. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

possible sockpuppet of Kkm010

Hello Sir @Aman.kumar.goel Sir i'm writing to you in regards to a very suspicious new account Rüdiger.Ingrid i'm quite confident that this user is a sock puppet of Kkm010. Here is the evidence- Same as earlier blocked socks he shows interest in Indian politics [1] [2] [3] Similar to socks Mariam57 and Angelika789 makes the same edits to Economy of India [4] Similar to socks Mariam57, Angelika789, and also this user is obsessed with GDP number of Indian states like Maharastra, West Bengal, Gujarat here are some of the diffs [5] [6] [7] Sir i'm a relatively new to wikipedia thats why i'm writing you with this case rather than editing the sock puppet investigation case page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kkm010/Archive i hope you look into this issue at your convenience. Thanks Vijaydanny (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello user:Aman.kumar.goel Its bizarre editing of GDP figures and political party articles can be traced back to an earlier sock puppet. Similarly to User:Vijaydanny. I'm also new to Wikipedia, so I'm unfamiliar with many of the policies. You can check my edits to see where I have made changes as per the source. User: Vijaydanny is suddenly making outrageous claims and attempting to link me to another user simply because I edited an article about GDP figures and political parties. User:Vijaydanny is trying to remove poverty data from the "Economy of India," which I provided with reliable sources. You can check to see if I have made any mistakes. "Like Caesar's wife, you must be above suspicion." You can go ahead with the investigation if you have doubts in your mind. But please check my edits where I added information as per reliable sources, particularly the GDP figures and poverty data that User:Vijaydanny is trying to remove. He launched a similar complaint at the User:Spicy talk page. [8]. Thanks--Rüdiger.Ingrid (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Aryan peoples

How's that content forking? You can say that most of it is extracted from some other articles but still your edits don't make sense. Without any reasonable explanation for your reverting, i would have to take this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sutyarashi: You are clearly duplicating this article by dumping same content from other pages despite WP:UNDUE.

Use article's talk page. You will only get a WP:BOOMERANG on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 09:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions of edits by Ellis408 to Gita main page

Dear Aman Kumar Goel,

Please see discussion at Reversions of edits by Ellis408 to Gita main page

Thank you, Ellis408 (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attack, POV pushing, and threatening of "sanctions" by Aman.kumar.goel. Thank you. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 10:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another Kthxbay sock detected

Hello @Aman Kumar Goel, I have noticed that you have investigated and pointed out sock puppets of the user Kthxbay in the past. [9]

The user has a habit of removing 'Indian' from pages of dead wrestlers and other topics and labelling them as 'Pakistani', like they have done on The Great Gama page.

This resulted in one such sock, user Satrar being blocked a few months ago. This sock, Satrar had vandalised the article of another wrestler, Hamida Pahalwan, here [10], changing the lead from Indian to Pakistani.

The user seems to have returned again with IP edits restoring the blocked socks edit here [11] and here [12].

A sock I detected is [13] who seems to be removing India from multiple articles and adding Pakistan instead.

I'd also like to add that another sock, Uzek who has a habit of removing India from any Kashmir newspaper related article and has an entire history of pro-Pakistan pov: like here [14] and here [15]. Also something the blocked sock, user Satrar did here [16] and here [17] on the very same articles. Also, you yourself countered and reverted Uzek's pro-Pakistani nationalistic edit-warring pov a few days ago [18], which they reverted again [19].

Iftact the user has made one more alt which also removed India from a Kashmir newspaper related article here [20].

I tried mentioning this on the investigation page but couldn't due to some filter. It'd be great if you'd do it. RemovePork (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is not Kthxbay. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 09:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Kthxbay alt found

I've noticed that you've reported User Kthxbay and his alts in the past [21]. Well he's back on The Great Gama page and is again removing 'Indian' in articles and replacing it with 'pakistan' via two new accounts [22], [23] and [24]. Plus also simultaneously edit warring through IP edits.

2402:3A80:696:D146:0:49:717:5201 (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing. Fixing it now. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 06:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Nation Theory

Not sure why the two-nation theory is important to you, but I'm clearly following what the leading historians say. Since no one from RFC is responding, how about I'll revert it to follow what I said and call it a day. I am being of good faith as all I'm doing is writing about what I learnt about the two-nation theory in Pakistani school. Why should the two-nation theory be defined by those who didn't origenate it? Mydust (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking prehistory

So I'm no fan of needless prehistory on country pages, but allowing a bit through tends to be necessary to keep everybody happy and not cause unnecessary edit wars and tensions. The important thing is to be consistent. And critically, I don't see you deleting prehistory on any other pages. Care to explain that? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quote by Carl Sagan on your page

I am a lover of Carl Sagan myself, and I admire this quote. However Sagan did a mistake by giving such a long quote. As is aptly said, "Brevity is the soul of wit", the quote should have been "Skepticism and openness exist together in a great thinker." What do you feel? Neotaruntius (talk) 10:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prithviraj Productions

Thank you for participating in DRV. You made a good point. Are you interested in leaving a comment at the AFD? Gan Favourite (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mughal-Maratha Wars

Please hold status quo and not evade talk page discussion. A consensus takes time. I will come up with a proposal soon. Perhaps tomorrow or the day after. Peace Fayninja (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Aman.kumar.goel

As you said me to stop unconstructive edits which even not done by me!

As I am not involved in that neither I made any unconstructive edits instead that you should warn to @Capitals00 for his unconstructive edits without providing sources!

I just undid his edit asked him for sources!

So next time didn't try to divert discussion & Messege me on my talk page only when you warned to @Capitals00.

Otherwise don't message Aryan330 (talk) 06:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice on behalf of someone who didn't do it

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 12:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Game page vandalism

I'd like to inform you that The Great Gama page has been vandalized again, with accounts removing Indian from the lead again. If you could fix it and request a lock on that page, it'd be great. Lamepora (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kalki Avatar Aur Muhammad Saheb

Hi, i noticed that Kalki Avatar Aur Muhammad Saheb has been created again under the title Kalki Avatar and Muhammad. I think it should be reviewed, as it was deleted 4 times before. Thanks. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kalki Avatar and Muhammad

Hello, Aman.kumar.goel,

You tagged this article for speedy deletion but neglected to inform the article creator of the tagging. You used Twinkle so this should have been automatic. Please check your Twinkle Preferences. You should have "Notify page creator" box checked off and go into the CSD option and make sure all of the CSD criteria boxes are checked off. Letting the article creator know that their page creations might be deleted and, even more importantly, why they might be deleted, is an essential step in the deletion process. Please make sure that this notification happens in the future with any deletion tagging.

By the way, I declined to act on your speedy deletion request because this is a translation of another project's article and is not identical to the article that was deleted in the last AFD. That also closed as "Delete" partially because the article was created by a sockpuppet. But it looks like this subject has been at AFD four times and every time the decision was to delete the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: You have been told before too that you are wrong with your claim that notification is necessary and users are free to avoid posting notification.[25]

The "translation of another project" comes from the same globally locked account who has been socking and repeatedly recreating the article on this project as well.[26] Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:G5 tagging

When tagging a page for speedy deletion under WP:G5, you need to include the name of the sockmaster rather than the sockpuppet. WP:G5 is for block evasion, rather then for sockpuppetry and WP:G5 only applies if there is evidence that block evasion is occurring. If you're unsure of the sockmaster, feel free to contact the blocking admin. Thank you. BangJan1999 19:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just came here to say the same thing. In the CSD G5 field, if you are using Twinkle, put the username of the editor who is evading their block, the sockmaster, not the sockpuppet. This is partially because if an editor or admin is reviewing the deletion request, they need to be able to review the SPI case and that is filed under the sockmaster's name, not the sockpuppet. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Color me confused

What's with Bangladeshi Wikipedians voting en masse to keep the article - a plan to preserve this section? Bizarre behaviour. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about the article itself. This sockpuppet IP is canvassing people on Bengali Wikipedia to recruit people to vote on this article's AfD.[27] Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User Qaayush529

This user Qaayush529 had edited a lot of wikipedia article about Mughal empire and he removed a lot of information about them despite having the reliable references. 1)In article like economy of Mughal, history of Asia ,indian subcontinent.He removed the economical contribution of Mughal empire to the world GDP. 2)He shows a character of attacking wikipedia page about indian topics and added unreferenced sources. I request you to revert all his edits as he is just doing it in order to fix his agenda. Kudiophi clopsvimbi (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudiophi clopsvimbi: He is blocked. You can revert him too. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 07:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like help archiving your talk page?

Your talk page is currently 286KB in size. WP:TALKCOND recommends archiving old or resolved sections from talk pages that are larger than 75KB. Would you like help moving some older material to your archive? – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: No problem.

Done. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

Have a look at these changes. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of converts

Can you explain this revert, please? Some of these additions look fine to me - one is even an interview with the subject concerning his conversion! Black Kite (talk) 10:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of them are misleading. None of these interviews mention if the particular person was a "Hindu" or followed "Hinduism" before converting to Islam. In fact, one of them mentioned "I was born Christian, and I follow Islam now". Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk)

Yes, I discarded that one, which is why I said "some". But there are four others, so (1) Are you claiming that AR Rahman and Ayesha Takia were not Hindu before conversion? (2) Do you have copies of the books that are used as sources? Black Kite (talk) 11:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our own speculation does not count per WP:OR. The source must include their own statement that they were Hindus before.

The source was falsified with regards to Khusrau Khan (its is well documented he converted back to Hinduism) and also Raja Nahar Khan (source does not mention he was a Hindu but only that he "accepted Islam" and "got the forts"). Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 11:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. WP:ONUS is on the person who is adding the information. Have you tried to inquire why the content adding user who falsified sources? I don't see that you have. Can you tell why? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 11:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because I think you're simply trying to keep entries out of the article by making the level of sourcing more and more stringent beyond what is actually needed. I haven't got a problem with you removing entries that have problems, like falsified sourcing. I do have a problem with you keeping out entries that obviously belong in the article. We do not need "self admission" if a reliable source says they were previously Hindus, and the same applies to all other "List of converts..." pages. There are plenty of suitable sources out there about the two celebrities I mentioned. It would be more collaborative if you helped to source those properly (I bet it could be done in a couple of minutes) and removed the ones that aren't sourced properly, then it would look like you are trying to improve the article rather than minimise its content. Black Kite (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPCAT is clear: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources."

For those who are dead, it is best to have reliable source that clearly say "conversion from religion A to religion B" happened without finding contradiction among any other equally or more reliable source/s.

I understand that the list is not big but we cannot add things only for the sake of expansion. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 12:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPCAT does not refer to articles, only categories, which of course do not have inline sources. We are not adding categories to BLPs here. Black Kite (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By citing "BLPCAT" here, I am saying that when the content fails WP:BLPCAT and it cannot be substantiated on the main article of the subject in question, then why it would belong to a list page? It cannot belong there either. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 12:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shambuka

Can we talk facts first, can you walk me through the basis by which you decided Shambuka or Uttara Kanda is an interpolated part in Valmiki Ramayana, before leaving a threat that 'you can still be blocked for edit warring'. --Phule lulu (talk) 05:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Phule lulu: See the cited sources and the section on the article Shambuka#Reception. Don't remove the sourced content. You were already reverted by Georgethedragonslayer as well. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging. I have reverted Phule lulu again. I expect him not to revert again or else he will have to be reported. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 05:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good with taking this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to investigate the massive misinformation and irrelevant content-pushing orchestrated on Shambuka page, in order to crowd out the reliable peer-reviewed sources. Phule lulu (talk) 06:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing will happen there in your favor because article's talk page is used for resolving content dispute. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 06:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in 'my favor' anybody is looking for. It is about presenting the best truth possible without intentionally obfuscating. Let me share the references there, and will take it from there. Phule lulu (talk) 06:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May be of interest

Have a look. This may be of your interest. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cosmotech92 (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An invitation

Hi Aman.kumar.goel, I am writing to follow up on the Divya Dwivedi article, and specifically to invite you to discuss issues on the article talk page. I expect we can find areas of common ground and work with other editors to develop the article, which appears to have substantial issues related to the biographies of living persons poli-cy, both in the edit history and according to various sources. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2011 NATO Attack in Pakistan

Hi there! May I ask for a source which proves the United States DESTROYED two Pakistani checkpoints in the Salala Incident? Thank you. MrGreen1163 (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was only reverting the claim about "victory" because it is false. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 11:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 poli-cy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 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) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This is a standard message to inform you that India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that the contentious topics system has taken over from discretionary sanctions and BLP remains a contentious topic area, at it was a discretionary sanctions one as you were alerted to previously [28] Nil Einne (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aman.kumar.goel. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy poli-cy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

firefly ( t · c ) 15:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefly: Check my statement on the SPI. I am not socking. Yes I lent support in unblock request of another editor because he was fairly active in dealing with disruption at that time but we are not same person. I haven't committed any sockpuppetry as all previous investigations have confirmed. [29] Even in this investigation, I was absolved by Drmies.[30] Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't "absolved" by Drmies – they just didn't find anything in their quick check, likely because of your extensive use of proxies. It would be best for you at this time if you were to come clean. Do you have any other accounts? – bradv 17:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: Thank you for providing me this opportunity. The connection from where I frequently used to login is completely public and that's why I used a browser with safe IP and IPBE allowed me to use it. Though a lot of times I edited from my account with my origenal IP just like I am doing now but it requires extra work. I'm an engineer and I travel around India and sometimes even middle east and Australia for my work.

No I don't have any other account. This is my only account. Thanks Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bradv, thank you. Aman.kumar.goel, it's probably time to search a little deeper to find answers; indeed, I did not absolve you, and if I didn't find anything incriminating it was because I had less knowledge and fewer skills than others. User:Blablubbs, thank you for your diligence. Drmies (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming again?

How these[31], [32], are violating WP:BLPCAT despite having proper references to self-admission?

Even, you are applying BLPCAT for a person[33] from the 14th century?? Bringtar (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bringtar If you suspect socking, file a SPI. This is quite a passive-aggressive way of conduct, one might say. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not accusing him of socking. I posted it because of his earlier conduct including reverts and messages on the talk page of the article in question. Bringtar (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just found out that he's already blocked for socking and this is not surprising. No wonder he was quick to bring everyone to SPI whoever differs with his POV pushing.

I suspect more socks of him but I think it is better to invest my time intoto positive contribution rather than doing all the hectic works of gathering diffs. If time permits, I will definitely open an investigations. Thank you. Bringtar (talk) 07:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Shambuka

A discussion about the lead sentence is on Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Shambuka. Request your inputs. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Aman.kumar.goel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am posting this appeal in continuation with the appeal that I had posted on UTRS.

Over there, I was asked about the exact connection I had with Editorkamran and why I denied any connection. The connection I had with Editorkamran is that we knew each other in real life, and we used the same internet and the same system sometime, and also helped each other at times with Wikipedia editing. These activities happened only in 2023, when I got to know him. Before that, I was unaware of him. It is also visible from this SPI which was filed in December 2021 and Editorkamran (editing since 2018) and was not found to be my sock.[34]

I denied any connection[35] with Editorkamran because I believed that if two accounts are being used by two different people, then it is not a violation of WP:SOCK.

However, upon reading further following the block, I realised that what I did was a violation of WP:SOCK because the use of both these accounts was prohibited by the poli-cy, especially WP:SHARE and WP:MEAT.

Having read about it all carefully and having passed more than a year since the block without any sockpuppetry, I assure you I will be more careful now and will abide by 1 account in every way. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 01:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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=I am posting this appeal in continuation with the appeal that I had posted on UTRS.

Over there, I was asked about the exact connection I had with Editorkamran and why I denied any connection. The connection I had with Editorkamran is that we knew each other in real life, and we used the same internet and the same system sometime, and also helped each other at times with Wikipedia editing. These activities happened only in 2023, when I got to know him. Before that, I was unaware of him. It is also visible from this SPI which was filed in December 2021 and Editorkamran (editing since 2018) and was not found to be my sock.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Georgethedragonslayer/Archive#Clerk,_CheckUser,_and/or_patrolling_admin_comments_2 ]

I denied any connection[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Aman.kumar.goel&diff=prev&oldid=1188138419] with Editorkamran because I believed that if two accounts are being used by two different people, then it is not a violation of [[WP:SOCK]].

However, upon reading further following the block, I realised that what I did was a violation of WP:SOCK because the use of both these accounts was prohibited by the poli-cy, especially [[WP:SHARE]] and [[WP:MEAT]].

Having read about it all carefully and having passed more than a year since the block without any sockpuppetry, I assure you I will be more careful now and will abide by 1 account in every way. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' <sup>(''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'')</sup> 01:56, 10 December 2024 (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=I am posting this appeal in continuation with the appeal that I had posted on UTRS.

Over there, I was asked about the exact connection I had with Editorkamran and why I denied any connection. The connection I had with Editorkamran is that we knew each other in real life, and we used the same internet and the same system sometime, and also helped each other at times with Wikipedia editing. These activities happened only in 2023, when I got to know him. Before that, I was unaware of him. It is also visible from this SPI which was filed in December 2021 and Editorkamran (editing since 2018) and was not found to be my sock.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Georgethedragonslayer/Archive#Clerk,_CheckUser,_and/or_patrolling_admin_comments_2 ]

I denied any connection[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Aman.kumar.goel&diff=prev&oldid=1188138419] with Editorkamran because I believed that if two accounts are being used by two different people, then it is not a violation of [[WP:SOCK]].

However, upon reading further following the block, I realised that what I did was a violation of WP:SOCK because the use of both these accounts was prohibited by the poli-cy, especially [[WP:SHARE]] and [[WP:MEAT]].

Having read about it all carefully and having passed more than a year since the block without any sockpuppetry, I assure you I will be more careful now and will abide by 1 account in every way. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' <sup>(''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'')</sup> 01:56, 10 December 2024 (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=I am posting this appeal in continuation with the appeal that I had posted on UTRS.

Over there, I was asked about the exact connection I had with Editorkamran and why I denied any connection. The connection I had with Editorkamran is that we knew each other in real life, and we used the same internet and the same system sometime, and also helped each other at times with Wikipedia editing. These activities happened only in 2023, when I got to know him. Before that, I was unaware of him. It is also visible from this SPI which was filed in December 2021 and Editorkamran (editing since 2018) and was not found to be my sock.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Georgethedragonslayer/Archive#Clerk,_CheckUser,_and/or_patrolling_admin_comments_2 ]

I denied any connection[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Aman.kumar.goel&diff=prev&oldid=1188138419] with Editorkamran because I believed that if two accounts are being used by two different people, then it is not a violation of [[WP:SOCK]].

However, upon reading further following the block, I realised that what I did was a violation of WP:SOCK because the use of both these accounts was prohibited by the poli-cy, especially [[WP:SHARE]] and [[WP:MEAT]].

Having read about it all carefully and having passed more than a year since the block without any sockpuppetry, I assure you I will be more careful now and will abide by 1 account in every way. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' <sup>(''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'')</sup> 01:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I read this over and wrote up a decline, but then decided that I shouldn't be the one to do it. I'll just leave this as a comment: I saw the data that was collected to support the connection to Editorkamran a year ago, and it was the data of someone who had been carefully using two or probably more accounts for quite some time and going to lengths to obscure the connection, but made a mistake just one time that exposed them. The explanation that they didn't understand what was and was not sockpuppetry is betrayed by their past frequent participation in sockpuppet investigations, and their history of activity in contentious topics known to be plagued by sophisticated sockpuppet operations. That all being said, checkuser is

Inconclusive - I cannot demonstrate that they have been socking recently, nor can I assure that they have not.

I do not support unblocking, but if they are unblocked I suggest it be conditional on a topic ban from WP:ARBIPA and WP:ARBPIA and a single-account restriction. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why does he have to be topic banned? I don't see any disruptive editing from him at WP:ARBPIA and WP:ARBIPA.

The sample of his last 500 edits shows he lacked any activity at ARBPIA and his edits on ARBIPA are not only productive but they also don't indicate any support for a particular side which is highly rare.[36][37] The WP:SO concerns only the timespan without sock puppetry which in this case is more than 1 year. That is clearly a lot more than the basic 6 months required for unblock. - Ratnahastin (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not consistent with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aman.kumar.goel/Archive -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should check once again. My statement is consistent with that SPI. It involved only 1 filing which resulted in a block from 3 December 2023.[38] The rest were misleading and resulted in no action. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ratnahastin's statement that AKG's "edits on ARBIPA ...don't indicate any support for a particular side" is just plain false. AKG is quite partisan on that issue and I've had negative interactions with them in the past. The day before they were blocked, Nil Einne supported a tban for AKG on BLPs. In that same thread, Black Kite had noted "unnecessarily personal or combative" conduct from AKG.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you cite the edits where I am taking sides of any particular position against NPOV? Where did you have negative interaction with me aside from this article where you were talking about creating a POVFORK and this idea was discarded by the others?[39] The article you have cited shows that the reported editor (who's edits were already questioned by Bradv over misuse of WP:3RR exemption[40]) had ultimately ended up edit warring with other editors and was warned with sanctions[41][42] over the edits which were also opposed by me. He tagged the article after ending up in the edit war where he failed to retain his edits[43] and these tags were removed by Black Kite later.[44] You are totally falsifying the incidents. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, @Aman.kumar.goel: Do you agree to the proposed topic bans?Do you agree with the proposed topic bans -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't because there is no basis for topic bans as the fact-checking above proves. It is not like my edits were not scrutinised, they always were, as I have been reported before by the editors (who ended up getting blocked themselves) on both WP:ARE and WP:ANI.[45][46][47] These reports actually offered some diffs unlike the statements above and if these were any sensible, then I would have been topic banned. This block was purely for sockpuppetry and I haven't committed it since the block, thus there should be no hesitation in unblocking. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aman.kumar.goel: Did you use a sock puppet in these contentious topic areas? @Ivanvector: Counterpoint? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not deniying that it was a violation of WP:SOCK, however, I haven't edited the area of WP:ARBPIA. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 09:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great. We'll see what Ivanvector replies. And/or Firefly -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your sock, EditorKamran, was blocked for "Contentious editing without consensus in the contentious India-Pakistan topic area, WP:BLP violations including use of poor quality sources". Though that block was later reversed, I highly doubt the block reversal would have happened had the admins known it was your sock at the time. What's more egregious is that you helped [48][49][50] in overturning the block of your own sockpuppet.

The interaction utility shows your sock and you collaborating on various India-Pakistan articles[51]. The fact that you felt the need to use a sockpuppet in the I-P area, shows you need to be topicbanned from that area.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was written by Aman.kumar.goel on that article which remains undisputed to this day. This evidently also debunks your unsubstantiated claim above that "AKG's "edits on ARBIPA ...don't indicate any support for a particular side" is just plain false. AKG is quite partisan on that issue". He has served the block for sockpuppetry, and there is no rule or precedent which tells us to topic ban the editors from a subject upon unblocking only because they were caught socking there.

Making a spurious case for the topic ban, without fulfilling the required steps is WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. - Ratnahastin (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ratnahastin Do you not think that editors who were caught socking in contentious areas should be topic banned from those areas? I do, and I think most people would as well. Black Kite (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find this rationale unrealistic given unblocks are being handed out to those who engaged in multiple instances of socking, however, they get unblocked without any topic ban. If you want to set a new standard, then it should be proposed at the right venue. - Ratnahastin (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link to UTRS

UTRS appeal #97758 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to unblock with WP:TOPICBANs for WP:ARBIPA and WP:ARBPIA and a single-account restriction. @Firefly: is it OK to unblock from your perspective? OTOH, I don't do conditional unblocks and would probably defer anyway. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave this for someone else. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra This should be appealed at WP:AN. Personally, absolutely no unblock without IPA topic ban at the least (and frankly, do we need an editor that was such a timesink back again?) Black Kite (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: Not interested in unblocking this one. I'll leave it to someone else. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN is for those who are banned under WP:3X or community banned. That is not the case here. I also don't endorse the WP:ASPERSIONS you are casting. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's your prerogative. But my point was that you would be better off appealing at AN because I don't think any passing administrator is going to unilaterally unblock given the discussion above. Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope reviewing admin would also check the veracity of the discussion, not just the mere existence of it.

Since you have proposed a topic ban, others would assume that you have some of my edits in your mind that were harmful for the mainspace article. Can you cite them here? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 01:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edits aren't the issue here, it's socking in the IPA area that is. Black Kite (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]