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

See Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 originate it? Mydust (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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 policy, both in the edit history and according to various sources. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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 policy 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]

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 policy. 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 original 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]

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]

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]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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 policy, 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]

Decline reason:

Since no admin has stepped forward to take any action on this, I'm reading the situation as a "decline in effect". If you would like to appeal to the community at WP:AN, please submit another unblock request, state at the outset that you would like it to be considered at WP:AN, and then write the exact text you would like to be brought to the noticeboard. -- asilvering (talk) 16:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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 denying 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]

Yet it's already very common that editors who are blocked for socking need to accept a topic ban as a precondition for unblocked. It doesn't always happen but I'd say the majority of times when there was a clear problem area, the editor is topic banned as a precondition for any unblock. Since we're talking about CTOP areas all of which I assume Aman.kumar.goel was aware of, there wouldn't even need to be a block for a topic ban. Any admin could have topic banned them at any time for their disruption. Frankly, I would have said a topic ban was sufficient for an unblock at the beginning, but I'd say their replies suggest they're not yet ready for an unblock. Anyone who would fight so hard against a topic ban probably isn't ready for an unblock. Nil Einne (talk) 11:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For further clarity I'm referring only to a topic ban on ABPIPA and maybe one on BLP only. I don't personally see a need for ARBPIA, given AFAICT, the lack of significant editing in this area before the block under either account. Even if one is imposed, for that reason I also don't see harm in Aman.kumar.goel challenging it here based on the lack of editing. Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I not oppose the topic ban when it is being proposed without any basis? Topic ban is essential only when the edits are problematic. That is clearly not the case here. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 12:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• I want to add WP:GS/CASTE as another potential problem area. As part of their previous unblock they promised never to editwar again[52], but they later engaged in edit warring at Caste-related violence in India[53][54][55] (where they were reverted back by 3 different users).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have edited this article before and I saw many of those edits were restored by others. I have restored the remaining edits because they did attempt to improve this bloated list which is already tagged for a long time. You are falsely claiming he was "reverted back by 3 different users" contrary the diffs you have cited. This edit cited by you is the edit from the user himself, this edit reverted another editor] and this edit is also reverting the same editor. It is surprising that this is all you could find in 4 days after having been criticised for your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality above. You forgot to tell that what was exactly wrong with those edits. The article is clearly being misused for adding non-notable incidents with summaries often larger than a basic stub article. The discussion on talk page,[56] where only 1 editor supported the reverts, shows how his edits were an improvement. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, they were reverted by two different users (Adamantine123[57] and Ekdalian[58]), not three.

  "You forgot to tell that what was exactly wrong with those edits." You need to understand that edit-warring is disruptive even if nothing is wrong with the edits (though in this case they were POV-pushing). EK/AKG promised to not edit-war as part of their unblock, and then went right back to that behavior upon being unblocked. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You are talking as if a proper 0RR restriction was being violated. It never existed. Where is the POV-pushing? You believe "edit-warring is disruptive even if nothing is wrong with the edits" then you are demanding sanctions against everyone who has engaged in edit warring until including yourself who has jumped to edit war on this article with no prior history only to impose your own POV here by using misleading edit summaries. - Ratnahastin (talk) 03:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also would decline to unblock, based on a review of comments by User:Ivanvector and User:Vice regent on the user's talk page. AKG is not offering a complete change of approach, he still defends past actions and doesn't even want this taken to WP:AN. He won't agree to any topic bans ("I don't because there is no basis for topic bans as the fact-checking above proves."). If he is unblocked he'll probably continue to be a high maintenance editor. User:Black Kite says above, "..frankly, do we need an editor that was such a timesink back again?" How likely is it that an unblock would be beneficial to the encyclopedia? EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: I haven't defended any of the actions that led to the block. I have not defended sockpuppetry and have agreed to one-account restriction. I have only said there were no edits from me which could justify topic ban from IPA. Black Kite suggested I should be topic banned for sock puppetry but I have already agreed to one-account restriction. Given your comment, I would add that I have no issue with bringing this to WP:AN. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In case at least one administrator remains interested in unblocking, they should take it to WP:AN (see Wikipedia:Blocking policy § Unblock requests, "if the administrators cannot come to an agreement"). In case no administrator remains interested in unblocking, this should simply be declined here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: a disagreement over here is whether I should be unblocked with a one-account restriction or with a topic ban from WP:ARBIPA. The latter would be required only if I made disruptive edits in this area, but it is being proposed by citing the existence of sockpuppetry for which I have already spent more than a year blocked and have agreed to one-account restriction. To resolve this issue, a WP:AN thread won't be a bad idea. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 12:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is at least one administrator who would be willing to unblock you under any conditions, they could start that discussion, true. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to unblock provided there is consensus at AN that this should be done, so I've declined this unblock and made that offer. For the offer to function as it should, of course, all unblock-skeptical admins should comment there, if the offer is taken. -- asilvering (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request is at WP:AN#Block appeal for User:Aman.kumar.goel. -- asilvering (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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 requested unblock last month. After some discussion, it was decided that I would have to write an appeal for WP:AN and for that, my existing unblock request was rejected.

I was blocked for sockpuppetry. There was no doubt throughout the discussion over that. I have agreed to a one-account restriction. However, during the unblock request, a topic ban on me was proposed from Israel-Palestine (WP:ARBPIA) and also from Afghanistan, Pakistan and India (WP:ARBIPA). Though no proper evidence was provided to substantiate such proposals.

While the proposal to topic ban me from WP:ARBPIA does not make any sense because I haven't even edited that area, I would nevertheless reject the proposed topic ban from WP:ARBIPA with explanation because in this area I have been significantly active.

My edits on WP:ARBIPA were clearly net-positive, and they fixed the long-term problems that were otherwise overlooked for a long time. You can find the deletion of a number of non-notable pro-Hindutva articles,[59][60][61][62] creation of SPIs of future LTAs,[63][64][65] and multiple DYKs.[66][67] That said, the idea to topic ban me achieves nothing good. Black Kite himself said "The edits aren't the issue here, it's socking in the IPA area that is.".[68] However, for the offense of sockpuppetry, I have already agreed to one-account restriction and spent over 1 year blocked.

Once unblocked, I would like to improve drafts such as Draft:Aeroin Spacetech and Draft:Omspace Rocket and Exploration. Looking forward to positive feedback. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 00:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Withdrawn (see below); see Special:Diff/1268696083 for the closed discussion at WP:AN. -- asilvering (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• @Asilvering: Posted the unblock request for WP:AN. Thanks Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 00:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I added some additional context, which I hope you find acceptable. -- asilvering (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please post this reply to Extraordinary Writ on WP:AN:

@Extraordinary Writ: Hope you will check my statement above where I explained, "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 policy, especially WP:SHARE and WP:MEAT." That means the CU finding does not really challenge my admission because I don't deny using multiple accounts. The only thing I happened to clarify was that the two accounts belonged to two different persons before they were used by the same person, which is me. That's why, in my unblock request (for WP:AN), I have also cited the edits of Editorkamran account as part of my edits into this area. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 02:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 02:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that helps. Can you give us any sense of which edits from the Editorkamran account were yours? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, here are many of them:[69][70][71][72][73] Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please post this reply to the 2nd post of this edit by Black Kite on WP:AN:

@Black Kite: It seems that you are thinking about somebody else because I filed only 2 reports in 2022 and 2023 on WP:AE and both of them resulted in topic ban or indefinite block on the reported editors.[74][75] Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 11:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There were also 3 in 2021 (Bringtar, not actionable // Loveall.human, warning issued + general note about conduct of all editors // SpicyBiryani, 6 month topic ban) and 5 in 2020 (USaamo (again), topic ban // YuukiHirohiko, no action // SpicyBiryani (again), 3 month topic ban // Edithgoche, warning issued // DBigXray, declined with prejudice). Additionally to these in 2020, you also took a lead role in opposing appeal by Mar4d, which saw the topic ban lifted. Black Kite didn't specify a time frame with his comment, I note. Daniel (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes most of them resulted in an action and none of them saw any uninvolved editor/admin ever saying that I was misusing the noticeboard contrary to what Black Kite says. The objection here was over my filing of reports at WP:ARE. For that, only the recent diffs on WP:ARE where I have filed the reports should be considered. If you are going to check my mere participation on ARE or filings at WP:ANI then you can also see this where the reported editor was topic banned from Pakistan and feminism,[76] this where the editor was topic banned, this where the editor was blocked for 72 hours, this where the editor was blocked indefinitely, and more. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 15:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"none of them saw any uninvolved editor/admin ever saying that I was misusing the noticeboard contrary to what Black Kite says" - not sure this is entirely accurate, considering this one was declined "with prejudice". Comments from unvinvolved administrators there included "I'm of the opinion that the filer ought to be, at the very least, admonished for initiating this complaint". Doug and Bishonen also supported declining "with prejudice". Daniel (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was more than 5 years ago. As clear from the links above, the same admin later observed a number of complaints where I was involved and did not sanction me. The filing was declined because of off-wiki harassment against that editor. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Less than 5 years ago, not more - of which more than one has been spent indefinitely blocked. I think it's definitely within a reasonable timeframe to consider. Daniel (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Requesting someone to post this at WP:AN:

After seeing a number of editors, some of whom I respect, are supporting my unblock but only with a topic ban from WP:ARBIPA, I would like to accept the topic ban from the said area. Ping Yamla, The Kip, Black Kite, Caeciliusinhorto-public, Simonm223 and Vanamonde93. Thanks Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. - Ratnahastin (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Asilvering: This request is unlikely to pass. It is not worth it to waste the community's time anymore. I would like to withdraw this unblock request and if possible, would lodge an appeal here not before 6 months. Thanks Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 01:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Closed. While this request was unsuccessful, I don't see any reason not to extend the standard offer; see you in six months. -- asilvering (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]