Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aman.kumar.goel/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Aman.kumar.goel

Aman.kumar.goel (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

06 June 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

The two editors show great deal of overlapping editing interest.

NavjotSR makes a revert on 3 November 2019 in Sino-Indian War changing "Decisive Chinese victory" to "Chinese victory". Aman.kumar.goel appears on 4 May 2020 and makes the exact same edit with no prior editing history in the page.

Their editing pattern in other articles looks more suspicious. Aman.kumar.goel on 5 January 2020 rewrites the lead and history section of Sitar, stating, "A modified form of Veena, the instrument was invented in medieval India" and replaces an existing reference in the history section with the book titled "Sitar Music in Calcutta: An Ethnomusicological Study", stating "Sitar is said to have been invented, or rather developed from the Veena by Amir Khusrow, a famous Sufi inventor, poet, and pioneer of Khyal, Tarana and Qawwali, during thirteenth century".

The article went through several changes afterwards and some new references were introduced by other editors. On 24 February 2020, NavjotSR makes their first edit in the article with exactly the same text and replaces two references with the same book ("Sitar Music in Calcutta: An Ethnomusicological Study") that Aman.kumar.goel inserted in the history section.

Note that NavjotSR is not merely reverting the previous edit here rather pretends to rewrite the article with an edit summary "poor coding and misrepresentation", but with, surprisingly, the same exact content that Aman.kumar.goel introduced. NavjotSR then, on 24 May 2020,‎ begins an edit war in the article against some anonymous users to keep this version and continues for two days before the article gets fully protected.

Similar partnerships occured in Money marriage and Caste-based prostitution.

Aman.kumar.goel, on 17 May 2020, redirects the newly-created article Money marriage to Wife selling. When they got reverted by the article creator, NavjotSR appears on 19 May 2020 to redirect the article back to Wife selling.

Again, on 17 May 2020, Aman.kumar.goel redirects the newly-created Caste-based prostitution to Prostitution in India. And again after being reverted, NavjotSR appears and redirects it back to Prostitution in India.

In Child prostitution, NavjotSR deletes the content on India, particularly a reference from The Guardian which states "an estimated 100,000 lower caste women and girls are groomed into prostitution as a family trade...".

Edit warring begins: NavjotSR makes two subsequent reverts (One, Two) against two editors to restore their version and in the process, removes an additional reference from Reuters which states, "thousands of Indian children are trafficked into prostitution each year...", along with the previous content stated above. When they get placed on 3RR, Aman.kumar.goel appears and reverts the article back to NavjotSR's version, again with no prior editing history in the article.

Same thing happened in Child sexual abuse, NavjotSR deletes content on India, reverts other editor, reverts again, gets on 3RR, Aman.kumar.goel apears and reverts it back to NavjotSR's version.

There are numerous such cases which I haven't touched yet. The two editors have no history of interactions with each other, be it their own user talk pages or the talk pages of the articles mentioned above. The editing pattern seems to suggest NavjotSR is used by Aman.kumar.goel to do the dirty works while keeping their main account clean. Considering their contentious topics of interest, the master might have more such puppets playing around. I.Bhardwaj (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Creffett:, @Maxim:, thank you for your time and efforts in investigating this case. Frankly, I'm indeed surprised to see them turn out to be separate users given the time I had to put to gather the evidence. However, as creffett has mentioned about the possibility of off-wiki canvassing, can it be inferred as a sign of meat puppetry? This could act as a record for other editors who interact with them to approach them in a better way, as the disputes they are involved in are still ongoing. As I stated above, there might be other users as well who are involved with this meatpuppetry. Thanks again. I.Bhardwaj (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: 8 June 2020

I have recently taken a look at another user Orientls (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). I'm adding this suspected sock to the list with some additional evidence. Note that, a user had improperly filed a case earlier under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orientls suspecting Aman.kumar.goel to be their sock but the page was rollbacked by Aman.kumar.goel when the filer was indeffed.

Although the account of Orientls was created in 2014, much before Aman.kumar.goel, the editor became quite active around late-2018, the same period when Aman.kumar.goel began editing. While the possibility of off-wiki canvassing can't be ruled out, the amount of evidence prompts me to post them here. I.Bhardwaj (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aman.kumar.goel + Orientls[edit]

Aman.kumar.goel starts edit warring at The Great Gama over the nationality, referring him as an Indian and makes another revert to restore their version. After getting reverted, hours later, Orientls pops up to make their first edit at the article to restore Aman.kumar.goel's version.

Aman.kumar.goel makes an edit at Insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to remove some sourced content in what appears to be a content dispute but he calls it "removed mainly the vandalism". They basically changes the status of the conflict from "Pakistani government victory" to "Ongoing" along with the cited sources and removes some additional sourced content, particularly "Elimination of Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, Al-Qaeda, Haqqani Network and other terrorist groups presence in Pakistan" and changing "Reduction of drone strikes conducted by the United States in Pakistan" to "Drone strikes were conducted by the United States".

The removed sourced content was restored by another editor on the same day, who in turn was reverted by an IP (most likely belonging to Aman.kumar.goel/NavjotSR/Oreintls). When the IP was reverted by two uninvolved vandalism patrollers through Huggle multiple times, Orientls pops up to make their first edit at the article to revert the patroller and restore the version of Aman.kumar.goel.

Aman.kumar.goel makes a gigantic revert at Vedas on 28 April 2020 to remove large amount of sourced content. Article goes through major changes by two other editors, one of whom added some references and expanded a section, stating "...reformers like B. R. Ambedkar, who saw it as part of the oppressive Varna (caste) system propogated by the dominant Brahminical social order." Hours later, Orientls appears to make their first edit and removes the part. After restoration by the other editor, Aman.kumar.goel removes it again.

Orientls makes an edit to remove some sourced content, particularly, "Pro-Pakistan sentiment in Kashmir is present among kashmiri muslims and Kashmiri people who are opposed to Indian rule in Jammu and Kashmir...". When another editor restored the content on 18 April 2020 with additional sources, Aman.kumar.goel pops up hours later and makes their first edit at the article to remove the same content that Orientls did.

Also, there are several instances where they joined the same AfDs to make same ivotes, for instance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalit Film and Cultural Festival, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caste-based prostitution etc. Again, the two editors have no history of interaction between them in their talkpages. I.Bhardwaj (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NavjotSR + Orientls[edit]

I'm also taking a look to collect evidence of overlaps between Orientls and NavjotSR (who exhibit similar overlapping pattern) which will further bolster the case of sockpuppetry (or meatpuppetry). Will post it shortly. I.Bhardwaj (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to post evidence on similarities between NavjotSR and Orientls but looks like MarkH has already added some. However, I can add some more evidence in detail if needed. I.Bhardwaj (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CodeSlashh[edit]

@Creffett: I'm adding this account to suspect list. This user showed up at several articles while I was looking to collect evidence for Orientls. This account was also poorly filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orientls but the CU was declined due to lack of evidence. The account was created in 2016 and made a single edit that year but was reactivated in 2020 and began editing actively, particularly at COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China and the newly-created Caste-based prostitution where Orientls, NavjotSR and Aman.kumar.goel have edit-warring history. In fact, the two articles are two of the top edited articles by the user.

For a user with an edit count of little over hundred, CodeSlashh has a good amount of overlapping edits with the other three. I'm not posting details here as the case is already getting pretty verbose. Please let me know if additional evidence is needed.

CodeSlashh + Aman.kumar.goel

CodeSlashh + NavjotSR

CodeSlashh + Orientls

Codeslashh also participated actively at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caste-based prostitution and ivoted Delete, same as Orientls and Aman.kumar.goel.

I'm starting to look deeper into the pattern and suspect there are some more accounts as well so requesting a check for sleeper accounts. I.Bhardwaj (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @Ivanvector:, @Cabayi: The suspects have begun to panic and have been trying to disrupt this investigation right after creffett posted on Aman.kumar.goel and NavjotSR's talkpages asking whether they are related. Aman.kumar.goel filed a retaliatory SPI case against me at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/I.Bhardwaj adding only superficial similarities in editing style with users they have disputes with. The case is still open but the suspects are repeatedly calling me deceptive sock/obvious sock at different places. After the relisting, Aman.kumar.goel posted a message in what appears to be WP:Canvassing, accusing creffet of fishing, despite overwhelming evidence of sockpuppetry here. There is a clear notice in red to allow the clerk "to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate." which the suspects seem to not care about. They are just repeating the same pattern seen in the disputed articles mentioned above. I'm requesting admin intervention against the disruption here. I.Bhardwaj (talk) 07:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

  • Ping Ivanvector and Cabayi who had rejected the mentioned report filed by a socking user. I don't see why this misleading rehashing from another deceptive sock, editing after 6 years of hiatus for filing this report, should be taken at face value. NavjotSR (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The policy against sockpuppetry doesn’t care who files a report. This isn’t about them. You also shouldn’t have anything to worry about if you haven’t actually done anything wrong.
      Calling another editor a deceptive sock when they haven’t been blocked for sockpuppetry yet is also a bit inappropriate. — MarkH21talk 04:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"sockpuppetry doesn’t care who files a report" is wrong and contradicts WP:DFTT. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 06:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, the point is that if an editor has sockpuppets, then they're breaking the policy regardless of who files the report. If the underlying behavior is legitimately problematic, then the essay about feeding trolls is not applicable. — MarkH21talk 06:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

This case is being reviewed by Creffett as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

  •  Clerk endorsed - There are indeed a fair number of places where both pop up to restore to the other's edits, though I wouldn't quite call this good hand/bad hand behavior. They also both showed up at Talk:Annexation_of_Dadra_and_Nagar_Haveli#Requested_move_21_November_2019 and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Pakistan_Armed_Forces, so I'm a little suspicious of vote-stacking. There is enough evidence here that I agree sockpuppetry is possible (though I suppose it could also be off-wiki canvassing), let's find out. Checkuser endorsed. creffett (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Unlikely to be the same individual. Maxim(talk) 21:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I.Bhardwaj I am aware of your concerns and have directly asked both users about whether they are connected. creffett (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Relisted - This case just keeps getting more tangled. Relisting for CU since that is a surprising amount of overlap - please check the newly listed possible socks Orientls and CodeSlashh, and sleeper check as well. creffett (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • All four accounts are  Unlikely to each other based also on Maxim's result above. Orientls & CodeSlashh are  Unlikely but I might go  Possible at a (long) stretch. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, the amount of overlap is strange, but CU says "unlikely" and there is not enough behavioral evidence to persuade me that this is sockpuppetry. Closing without action. creffett (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11 October 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

The two accounts were created around the same time (three weeks apart) and share pretty strong overlapping interests. SrijanX22 always shows up in an article with no history of editing whenever Aman.kumar.goel is reverted in a dispute and restores Goel's POV version. For instance,

While the above are from South Asian military history topic area, they also share the same POV in other areas as well.

And even in some low important stubs,

The two accounts also had similar positions in different AfDs, RfCs and RMs as the tool suggests. Such strong overlaps in interests, POV as well as editing time point towards sockpuppetry. Nomian (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

  • @Tamzin: I never contacted Srijanx22 neither I saw him contacting me. A number of users keep records of each others contributions to know what is currently happening and many of them have these pages (RFPP, ANEW, etc.) in their watchlist so they get notified of the dispute. The similarities cited here are bogus since at least 4 or 5 other editors had made same reverts on the articles cited here (Bangladesh Liberation war, Bakarkhani, Ambedkar, etc.). Though I note that Nomian is clearly filing SPIs after being asked by someone else since  he is lacking any interaction with the editors he allege of socking and  this is his 2nd SPI after another bogus SPI he filed earlier at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sachin.cba/Archive involving similar articles. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What AKG said. I don't have anything else to add to this hilarious SPI. Srijanx22 (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That make no sense Tamzin. Why can't you endorse a CU if you have any doubts? You are saying that editors like us need to avoid reverting where either of us has reverted before even if the edit is problematic (like in the cases here) or the person happens to be a blocked sock or a drive-by vandal. Article's talk page is the right place to object to a valid revert than SPI. I am comfortable with ignoring your 'warning' since it lacks policy backing. You are wrong as well with saying that OP's behavior should be brought somewhere else. The OP is engaging in WP:MEATPUPPETRY as proven above and SPI is the only venue for dealing with that issue. You should rather allow someone experienced like RoySmith to handle it and avoid setting problematic precedents. Srijanx22 (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Srijanx22 you raise some legitimate questions, and since I was pinged here, I'll address them as best I can. First, there's no precedent set. A clerk endorsing or not endorsing is really just a suggestion. A clerk could decline to endorse and a CU could go ahead and run a check anyway. Or a clerk could endorse and a CU could decline to run the check. But, Tamzin is pretty clueful so I'm inclined to go with her judgement on that. Looking at the case on my own, I agree that there's a ton of article overlap, but it's all in one general topic area (and one which tends to engender strong nationalistic feelings), so I don't put much weight in that. On the other hand, in my first pass through a case, I like to look at timecards and what clients editors use. Both of these make me think that Aman.kumar.goel and Srijanx22 are different people, so I certainly don't see anything that makes me doubt Tamzin's judgement on this one. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thank you for the clarification. Srijanx22 (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

This case is being reviewed by Tamzin as part of her training as a clerk. Please allow her to process the entire case without interference. You may pose any questions or concerns either on her talk page or on this page.

  • CU  Clerk declined. I'm fairly confident that these are different people, enough so that I don't feel comfortable endorsing a CU. They have different edit summary styles and different timecards [1][2], and while they indeed have been on the same side of several content disputes, often their respective edits in these disputes have come months apart. However, based on the number of content disputes and AfDs, RMs, etc. they've been on the same side in, I do have a suspicion that there's been some off-wiki coördination going on.  On hold pending an answer to the following: @Aman.kumar.goel and Srijanx22: Have you been discussing any of these content disputes, AfDs, RMs, etc. off-wiki? If so, has either of you been asking the other to come revert an edit or come !vote in a discussion? Please answer honestly. I'm not looking to block anyone here. It's just that if you've been doing that we need to have a talk. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still a little uncomfortable with the rate of agreement in discussions and content disputes. If this were a first instance of that, I'd chalk it up to chance, but GeneralNotability had these same concerns when closing the last SPI. I understand that when you edit in the same topic area as someone and have a similar perspective to them, you may often wind up on the same "side" in discussions and content disputes. There are definitely some editors I always or almost always agree with in discussions. Absent clear evidence of tag-team editing, I don't think I can do anything when it comes to discussions. As to content disputes, showing up to an article for the first time just to revert a good-faith edit is undesirable behavior regardless of any tag-teaming issues. As such, I am closing with a warning that Aman.kumar.goel and Srijanx22 should avoid making reverts to articles they haven't visited before in a manner that could create an appearance of impropriety, without per se finding that tag-teaming has occurred. I doubt anyone here will be happy with this conclusion, but it's the one that best prioritizes the smooth running of the encyclopedia. In conclusion, any concerns about the nominator's behavior can be taken up at ANI, AE (if all involved are AWARE of WP:ARBIPA), or another suitable venue. SPI is not an adversarial venue. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 19:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Srijanx22: A CU wouldn't matter here because I don't see evidence that you and AKG are the same person, essentially for the reasons that Roy describes. As I said before, different edit summary styles and different timecards. And please keep in mind that CheckUsers do not run self-requested checks.
      No, rather, I see an amount of evidence that you may be coördinating inappropriately. At Bakarkhani, Bangladesh Liberation War, COVID-19 pandemic in India, Violence against Christians in India, CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder, Soomro, Pakistan Stock Exchange attack, Soomra dynasty, Bully Kutta, Hypersonic Technology Demonstrator Vehicle, and likely many more of the pages here, one of you edited a page for the first time to make a revert or an edit that restored (partly or wholly) previous content, in many of those cases favoring content added or restored by the other. Violence against Christians in India stands out: You both made the same revert six hours apart, and neither of you has edited that page since. There are a number of other cases listed in that last link where you both edited a page in quick succession and then never returned to it, even if it wasn't to revert. It's on the basis of this that I became suspicious that there was some sort of off-wiki coördination.
      I appreciate that you both responded promptly to my inquiry, and really wouuld rather not accuse anyone of lying, so I decided it was better to avoid the question of whether there was some coördination despite your denials, and to instead focus on two things: One, the fact that an appearance of impropriety should still be avoided, and two, the fact that jumping into an article for the first time to revert non-vandalistic behavior is generally something best avoided. And so yes, I'm warning the two of you not to do things that could be perceived as tag-teaming in revert wars. There's many situations where editors have to worry about the appearance of impropriety. I often hold off from doing certain things on-wiki if it could be perceived as me siding with someone I'm known to be close with.
      Ultimately, a warning is just a warning. This isn't a ban—I don't even have the authority to impose one of those—just a warning that you should avoid doing this. I'm not saying that people should come rushing to SPI if it happens once, and certainly not if it's in the course of reverting unambiguous vandalism or such. Furthermore, if a future clerk or admin is asked to consider sanctions, looks back at what I've said here, and decides they're unpersuaded by my reasoning to warn, that's their decision. But I do stand by it.
      Also, if you have sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry concerns about the filer, you are welcome to file another SPI. My point was that this SPI is not the right venue for that.
      Finally, as the big pink notice up above notes, I am a trainee clerk. If you believe I have exceeded my authority or otherwise erred, you're welcome to ping (noping'd here) L235 and Blablubbs to discuss your concerns.
      Thanks. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09 August 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Same type of edit style, writing style, same type choice according to edit history. 202.134.10.138 (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC) IP blocked as proxy. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 13:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Mmm. I think this is unlikely (I can see an intersecting edit 43 seconds apart), but timeclocks are the same, and there's a lot of intersection on articles, including AfDs. Worth a check, I think, though I would be surprised if it came out positive. Black Kite (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • no Closing without action per lack of evidence, with no prejudice against someone refiling this with diffs. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02 December 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

During a content dispute over the past several weeks at the Divya Dwivedi article, I have noticed what may be behavioral similarities between Aman.kumar.goel and the IP range editor, which if they are operated by the same person, may create an appearance of more support for a position in the content dispute than exists, and may evade scrutiny for edit-warring, for which Aman.kumar.goel has previously been blocked [3] in 2020. The primary similarities I have noticed are 1) the use of the same and similar ad hominem statements during discussions, 2) edit-warring to push disputed content into the article instead of discussing, and 3) reliance on the same unreliable source as support for disputed content.

When recent BLPN discussion illuminated an unreliable source issue, indicating we may have finally found a resolution to the dispute, Aman.kumar.goel responded with what appears to be further ad hominem (WP:FILIBUSTER) and continuation of what appears to be edit-warring, which may indicate they believe they have consensus in favor of their and the IP range's view, despite the unreliable source, NPOV, OR, and BLP objections in response to their and the IP range's advocacy to add contentious disputed content to this CTOPs BLP.

Ad hominem
Edit-warring
  • 2402:A00:401:7C3E range:
  • Aman.kumar.goel:
    • In the article:
      • 10:06, 13 November 2023‎ [15] "simplify language" (restored disputed content)
      • 13:28, 1 December 2023‎ [16] "nothing wrong with this"
      • 15:42, 1 December 2023‎ [17] "No its fine"
      • 15:49, 1 December 2023‎ [18] "That discussion is already stale" (Aman.kumar.goel had commented in 'that discussion' (BLPN) about this disputed content at 13:25, 1 December 2023‎ [19], 13:27, 1 December 2023‎ [20])
      • 15:57, 2 December 2023 [21] "Can't edit war everyone"
Unreliable source
  • 2402:A00:401:7C3E range:
    • 09:20, 13 November 2023‎ [22] edit summary "The source clearly says "Divya Dwivedi says studies prove Mahatma Gandhi was one of the leaders who constructed the idea of ‘false Hindu majority’ in India."..." - this is the the subheadline of The Print source (the subheadline is not a reliable source, according to the RS guideline)
    • 15:59, 13 November 2023 [23] - on the article talk page, cites and quotes the subheadline of The Print ("Divya Dwivedi says studies prove Mahatma Gandhi was one of the leaders who constructed the idea of ‘false Hindu majority’ in India.")
    • 07:50, 28 November 2023 [24] - opening comment at BLPN includes citing/quoting the subheadline from The Print
  • Aman.kumar.goel:
    • 04:37, 20 November 2023 [25], in the article, adds the non-RS portion of The Print source (the subheadline) to the quote portion of the citation.
Other similarity

In another article talk page discussion: Talk:Divya Dwivedi#Proposal for Selected works section

  • 2402:A00:401:7C3E range:
    • 08:44, 19 November 2023‎ [26] "Only books should be there. Rest is entirely unnecessary."
  • Aman.kumar.goel:
    • 04:41, 20 November 2023‎ [27] "Added the mentioned books. I don't think anything else is really needed in that section."
Other notes

After I made an initial draft of this report, and while I waited for confirmation to file a public report, Aman.kumar.goel has filed Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Beccaynr_reported_by_User:Aman.kumar.goel_(Result:_)

Beccaynr (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I edite small mots of wikipedia, but this page is always under attack usually get ugly to make any positives. I find a few accounts interlinked as OP said. These to be the accounts
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Harshil169&redlink=1
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Anearnestcitizen&action=view
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dhawangupta
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brihaspati Guillaume R Legrand (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The recent ANEW report was closed with No action. Beccaynr (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
The following comment is moved from the clerk section. MarioGom (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reasons for leniency in the case of a first offense are some mix of ignorance of our rules and lack of awareness of the seriousness of sockpuppetry on Wikipedia. Aman.kumar.goel has filed many SPI cases and accused many IPs and editors of being sockpuppets; he's frequently but not always been correct. He's used this as a cudgel in various disputes. I think it's safe to say that he is very aware of our rules and the seriousness with which we view sockpuppetry. Also, depending on how you view his history, this may or may not be his first offense as he was previously caught editing both as an IP and as himself; perhaps this was accidental, perhaps it was intentional but it was brought to his intention at the time. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • OK, I ran a quick check--and I see nothing that worries me. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reformatted this case so that it more or less sticks with the standard SPI case format. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing per Drmies's comment. Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to butt in, but I'll have to place this  On hold for a bit. There are some things I'd like to untangle first. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Had to get a second opinion on something. no No comment with respect to IP address(es), but Aman.kumar.goel, despite editing from proxies almost exclusively, is  Highly likely to Editorkamran (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (who is also usually editing from proxies). That one was reported without any supporting evidence a few months ago, so I had declined a check at the time. Given overlap, clear intent to deceive, and things like this, I'd be inclined to indef them both (and certainly pull AKG's IPBE), but I'm about to step away, so will have to leave that decision to someone else since I don't want to take a potentially-controversial action when I'm about to be unresponsive for a few hours. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Blablubbs' assessment on technical likelihood, having reviewed the evidence myself. The behavioural evidence is also extremely compelling, and the unblock discussion Blablubbs links to (this one) is beyond the pale in my opinion. In it Aman.kumar.goel argues in favour of unblocking Editorkamran, saying He does not deserve the bad treatment that he is facing here over an inappropriate block and casts aspersions at the blocking administrator (I myself don't recall seeing worse block than this) despite both accounts almost certainly being operated by the same person.
  • Typically in first-offence cases of sockpuppetry we would indef the sock and temporarily block the master - however here I think the abuse and intent to deceive is serious enough to warrant indeffing both accounts straight away. I will also be revoking Aman.kumar.goel's IP block exemption as they have clearly now fallen below the level of trust required for it (courtesy ping to grantor Materialscientist). Closing, no comment or action related to the /64. firefly ( t · c ) 15:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Firefly: This will probably be negative, but given the use of proxies can you also check User:Dympies please, given their multiple examples of tag-teaming with AKG as mentioned in the ANI thread? Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dympies (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) adding template for ease of processing. firefly ( t · c ) 17:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite Dympies is  Unlikely in comparison to the clear technical link between AKG and EK. However given that proxy use is involved here, and the nature of the underlying IP ranges, I wouldn't view this as a conclusive result. firefly ( t · c ) 17:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting that reviewing CUs can find my notes here. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04 December 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

@Firefly:@Blablubbs: although this has been probably filed before too, can you please check the possible relation of User:Capitals00 with Aman.kumar.goel?

After I restored some of the pre-sock versions, they not only reverted them but also left a message stating to don't start a lame edit war just because your opponent is blocked for unrelated reasons.[28] This is pretty much same language Aman.kumar.goel has used for defending Editorkamran. In the past too they have been reverting to versions by Aman.kumar.goel on several articles like cradle of civilization and Indo-Aryan people whenever Aman.kumar.goel indulged into a possible edit war, usually with a interval of a few minutes, as their interaction timeline shows. They have overlapped "17 times" within an hour, usually at talk pages where consensus was needed or to revert other editors. This and their previous editing pattern suggests a possible sock or meat puppetry. Sutyarashi (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Which "pre-sock versions"? I had reverted your same edit over POVFORK on February 2023 with the same edit summary as now. An experienced editor has already told you on talk page how you are misguided with your edits to this article.[29] You need to stop abusing SPIs for content dispute. Capitals00 (talk) 09:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I later explained my position to them[30]. The fact that you both restored versions by each other across multiple articles within minutes made me suspicious for sock puppetry. Also, filing a report for sock/meat puppetry is not "abusing SPIs". Avoid such accusations, please. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please also look at:

Over the last 6 months, I've observed them in several contentious noticeboard discussions in support of User:Aman.kumar.goel making odd arguments. Here's an 8-editor interaction analysis of these 4 plus Dympies, Aman.kumar.goel, Editorkamran and Capitals00.

I've received 2 emails via the Wikipedia email system from 2 different South Asian extended confirmed editors telling me of off-wiki coordination in support of Aman.kumar.goel. These editors alleged this was Hindutva-sponsored editing. Since they didn't name other editors or provide proof, I didn't act on it. So it's also possible these may not be sockpuppets. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dympies recently pinged CharlesWain into a discussion at the article talk page at Divya Dwivedi, [31], to continue discussing disputed content that I then noted at the article talk page was previously discussed at ANI (filed by Aman.kumar.goel), and referenced my comment: [32], e.g. it seems particularly important, from a NPOV/BLP perspective, to not create original research/synthesis, e.g. in the example diff above, by taking content from one 2019 news source, that states, inter alia, 'She said x about Gandhi', followed by a 2023 source that says 'she said x about the Hindu Right etc and then faced death threats', to create article content that says, 'She said x about Gandhi and then faced death threats.' No source appears to support this synthesis, and this appears to be very contentious original content to add to a BLP. Beccaynr (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For reference/clarification, this refers to content that Dympies and Aman.kumar.goel had attempted to add to the article before the ANI was filed and the page protected for two days: [33] (Dympies), [34] (Aman.kumar.goel), [35] (Dympies), [36] (Dympies). Beccaynr (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For an example of interactions between the potential socks I reported above, see this ANI discussion:
Here are 26 sockpuppet/meatpuppet diffs in chronological order with 60-ish diffs from others. However, I think you'll get a better flavor of the whole incident by skimming the discussion rather than doing diff analysis. I can't put a finger on specifics but the puppets' writing styles and "voices" seem similar. The potential sockpuppets' usernames are in bold; others' diffs are in small print. All times are UTC:
18 August 2023:
19 August 2023:
20 August 2023:
After this, the thread lasted another day and mostly consisted of admins discussing the case before being closed. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please add
See diffs above for a sample.
Here's an 9-editor interaction analysis of Azuredivay, the 4 that I reported above (CapnJackSp, Orientls, Abhishek0831996, CharlesWain) plus Capitals00, Dympies, Aman.kumar.goel and Editorkamran.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went through CU-check before which is visible to anyone here. I invite any investigation against me if admins are really willing to entertain this bad faith report. CharlesWain (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said before, given the allegations about off-wiki coordination, it’s certainly possible you and the others aren’t technically sockpuppets. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Editorkamran and Aman.kumar.goel were also investigated as socks and “cleared” August 2023. So evidence can vary over time. We’ll see! —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"allegations about off-wiki coordination" is coming from you depsite you are acting after having "received 2 emails via the Wikipedia email system". Capitals00 (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Capitals00, it’s indeed possible that you and the others aren’t technically sockpuppets.
I’m not actually the person who reported you account so clearly this has drawn others’ attention, too. The edit history above speaks for itself.
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 13:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • About time, this SPI is being abused for settling content disputes. @Bbb23 and Ivanvector: can you settle the madhouse here? Capitals00 (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These are genuine concerns about a potential sock-farm here, not a abuse for settling content disputes, one that is forwarded by several editors. Also, mind your language and avoid being WP:PERSONAL. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Appeals to specific checkusers for rapid intervention was a signature tactic by Aman.kumar.goel against opponents. (This does not mean those checkusers subsequently did anything wrong)
    —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 13:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot comment on the merits of others, but accusing me of sockpuppetry is absurd. Looking through what "evidence" is provided for me, I am at a loss as to how any good faith editor could reach the conclusion of sockpuppetry. The supposed showpiece of my sockpuppetry is literally the exact conclusion that was reached by other admins (including the closer). I dont see how the interactions tool made them jump to this accusation either.
    I am open to being examined, including by a checkuser, as I have nothing to hide here and I would rather clear these allegations than have it said later that I tried to supress the findings. In case these findings show no wrongdoing, I ask for action to be taken against the filer for trying to throw a pot of allegations at a bunch of editors with the hope that something sticks. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, filing a SPI report is not wrong, especially if several editors have serious concerns. SPI would clear you, if you're not a sock. However, I find it mildly interesting that you and Capitals00 replied around same period. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Working those proxies as fast as possible —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 13:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to find a lot of things mildly interesting, including edit warring on contentious pages. Find better things to do than try and throw shade at others you have dragged into your dispute.
    As for A.B., keep in mind that you are crossing into WP:NPA territory here. You have made far too many allegations with no clear basis, and seem more than happy to mock me while simultaneously admitting that the accusations may not hold. I will wait for the investigation to conclude, and you had best hope that some of your mud sticks on atleast one of the editors, or else I will be asking for sanctions. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to explain your allegations that I'm edit warring on contentious pages and that I have dragged into my content dispute. First, which pages and which content you're talking about on which I'm edit warring? Second, this is my first interaction with you. The only interaction I've had recently were with Capitals00 and Abhishek, both of whom had been keenly safeguarding versions on various articles as left by Aman.kumar.goel.
    Also, if you mean me when you replied below (except to try and dissuade me from participating in a page where one of the other editors is involved) this makes the issue even more concerning as I, and as far as I can see, even @A. B.: is not currently involved with you in any of the talk page discussion. However, I did have talk page interactions with other suspected accounts (admins, please take these allegations into notice, as these may be potentially considered as admitting to being a sock).
    So, you need to explain how and where I did edit war and dragged you or any other into content dispute. You also need to explain how these reports were filed in bad faith (you weren't reported by me, though) More importantly, you need to explain why you are getting aggressive against me, when I didn't even mention or make allegations against you once and had instead filed against Capitals00?
    Otherwise, feel free to ask for sanctions; these baseless claims would only lead for a boomerang for you. Sutyarashi (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, CapnJackSp, it’s indeed possible that you or some of the others aren’t technically sockpuppets. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 13:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems with your comments above that this is indeed not a good faith report. For both of the responders above, filing SPIs in poor faith is absolutely wrong, and trying to paint editors with wild allegations is even more so - I see no point in my name being here except to try and dissuade me from participating in a page where one of the other editors is involved. I find this extremely poor conduct of someone who used to be an admin, though thankfully is no longer. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • no Declined. I see several new names here from the old ARBIPA "everyone is a sock" reports from 5 or 6 years ago, so let me remind everyone: in the geographic area where these disputes repeatedly originate, there is a population approaching 2 billion people. Some of them, believe it or not, have similar opinions on things. Taking sides in an editorial dispute is not sockpuppetry. SPI is not a weapon to neutralize your opponents, and winning by attrition is not how Wikipedia works. You're going to have to actually talk to each other, even if you really don't like each other. We have many processes available for editorial dispute resolution and you are hereby cordially invited to try one of them.
Also, NO. PERSONAL. ATTACKS. Be respectful or be blocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15 December 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This report follows the two preceding reports, with further evidence and a focus on possible signs displayed by Aman.kumar.goel, the IP range editor, Dympies, and CharlesWain. From my view, as discussion continues about contentious content in the Divya Dwivedi article, there seem to be similiar writing/editing styles, including the use and defense of unreliable sources, as well as forms of personalization during various discussions, that raise some concern about use of multiple accounts to create an appearance of excessive support.

Background
  • There has been a dispute related to content Dympies and Aman.kumar.goel attempted to add to the Divya Dwivedi article: [37] (Dympies), [38] (Aman.kumar.goel), [39] (Dympies), [40] (Dympies)
  • At 14:40, 4 December 2023, after the conclusion of the ANI filed against me by Aman.kumar.goel and Aman.kumar.goel's block, Dympies included CharlesWain in pings of several editors to discussion at the Divya Dwivedi article talk page [41].
  • At 14:57, 4 December 2023, I noted at the article talk page [42] the disputed content was previously discussed at ANI, and referenced my prior comment e.g. it seems particularly important, from a NPOV/BLP perspective, to not create original research/synthesis, e.g. in the example diff above, by taking content from one 2019 news source, that states, inter alia, 'She said x about Gandhi', followed by a 2023 source that says 'she said x about the Hindu Right etc and then faced death threats', to create article content that says, 'She said x about Gandhi and then faced death threats.' No source appears to support this synthesis, and this appears to be very contentious original content to add to a BLP.
Use and defense of unreliable and questionable sources
  • Aman.kumar.goel denied usage of an unreliable portion of a source during discussion at BLPN at 19:36, 2 December 2023 [43] ("Nobody used headline for information"), and I replied in a comment at 19:44, 2 December 2023 with diffs [44] showing use by Aman.kumar.goel (in the article) and use by the IP range editor (at BLPN, article talk, and article edit summary).
  • CharlesWain - 06:19, 8 December 2023 at Dwivedi article talk [45] proposes the use of an obviously unreliable source and an at best questionable source, as noted in my following comment at 06:44, 8 December 2023 [46]. Dympies then appears to defend the sources offered by CharlesWain at 12:00, 8 December 2023 [47] by referring to my source review as "nitpicking".
Personalization, sentence structure and word choices
  • IP range editor - 13:00, 13 November 2023 [48] / 13:02, 13 November 2023 Dwivedi article talk [49] "...Its from 2019 and has nothing to do with what happened in "September 2023"..."
  • CharlesWain - 08:39, 7 December 2023 Dwivedi article talk [50] "2023 controversy is not same as the one from 2019. ..."
  • CharlesWain - 06:19, 8 December 2023 Dwivedi article talk [51] "If you are really going to rely on these sources ..."
  • Dympies - 12:00, 8 December 2023 Dwivedi article talk [52] "If you are seriously going to engage in this nitpicking ..."
  • Aman.kumar.goel - 18:11, 1 December 2023 BLPN [53] "I don't recall a single message of yours that has made any sense so far."
  • CharlesWain - 12:21, 15 December 2023 Dwivedi article talk [54] "I am still finding zero sense over your exclusion of the widely covered quote."
Courtesy links

Beccaynr (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editor interaction analyser

Based on the Editor interaction analyser, there are some possible behavioral overlaps with the above report, including:

  • Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in India#Estimations - Aman.kumar.goel and Dympies participate in a discussion about WHO estimates vs. the Indian Health Ministry.
  • Raju Srivastav - Dympies undoes work by another editor [55]; is reverted with a request for talk page discussion [56]; Dympies reverts again [57]; is reverted by the other editor [58]; Aman.kumar.goel restores Dympies' version [59]
  • Shambuka - Aman.kumar.goel removes content [60]; another editor restores [61]; Dympies removes more content [62]; the other editor restores [63]; Dympies reverts [64]; the other editor restores [65] (edit summary includes "you can correct the alleged "earlier pointy edits" separately instead of blanket revert of 10 edits of 2 editors; only the lead is being discussed currently"); Aman.kumar.goel reverts to Dympies' version [66].

Beccaynr (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC) - expand list - Beccaynr (talk) 13:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I was pinged weeks ago on Dympies so I have this page in my watchlist. I admit that Dympies is my profile but technically, I am allowed to have have multiple profiles. The only instance when me and Dympies supported each other, was at Chitpavan Brahmins. However, that was something I did completely unintentionally. See this edit of mine at Chitpavan Brahmins. I wrote in edit summary: See talk page.

Now see my talk page comment: here. It came 10 minutes after the edit at main page. Why would someone say "see talk page" without commenting anything on talk page? I am showing this to prove that my edit at Chitpavan Brahmins was totally done in mistake. I was about to edit from Dympies profile but accidentally I forgot to check the logged in profile. Once I had done that mistake, I couldn't do anything else but write a comment supporting Dympies on talk page in order to justify my edit at page. I do realise that it should not have done that. Reverting that edit I made from Yoonadue altogether was something I should have ideally done. Had anyone asked me what happened I would have admitted right there that both accounts are mine. However, apart from this isolated incident at Chitpavan Brahmins , you won't find me doing what we call bad faith sockpuppetry.

As far as Togggle is concerned, its also my profile. But thats a non-significant one. It is being used to try edits at sandbox as I don't want other users to see what I am trying and testing for future. Thats all I had to say Ivanvector. I request admins to be a little soft on me considering I have been editing here for over 10 years and I haven't abused any of these accounts to mislead Wikipedia by garnering fabricated support despite my heavy involvement in difficult content disputes. --Yoonadue (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you not aware that you should declare your accounts on your userpage? I appreciate your admission above but see Template:User alternative account, and declare your accounts on the userpages of your accounts. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I wasn't aware. I have updated userpages of all my 3 accounts. --Yoonadue (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was only copying content to sandbox, thinking it's not a violation. I have already requested deletion of the sandbox. --Yoonadue (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An administrator who has access to the deleted content can review the edits - based on what I reviewed before the deletion, the editing appeared to be more than copying, and instead more like content development, including copyediting. Beccaynr (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to Abecedare, who applied the TBAN to Dympies. Beccaynr (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Let's start with this: Dympies has two other accounts, Yoonadue (talk · contribs) and Togggle (talk · contribs) (they're  Confirmed to each other).
    • Togggle gamed autoconfirmed in order to edit the (at the time) semiprotected List of Jat people, which Dympies also edited on the same day. All of their subsequent editing has been in their sandbox, where they seem to be copying bits of articles and making changes. My presumption is that one of the other accounts must copy these edits back into articles at some point, but I haven't been able to figure out where the snippets are coming from to further investigate.
    • Yoonadue's first edits were also gaming autoconfirmed, this time to edit Hinduism which has been semiprotected for at least 15 years.
    • All three accounts (including the mysterious snippets in Togggle's sandbox) edit articles related to Indian military history and demographics, but they are rather careful to avoid editing the same articles (editor interaction). But earlier this year they supported each other in a dispute at Chitpavan Brahmins (Dympies, Yoonadue) and on its talk page ([77]).
I'm going to leave this for a clerk to determine what to do, and I am not done checking. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18 December 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

AKG has been indef blocked for sockpuppetry, but I'd like to take another look at the connection with C00. Aside from the evidence provided here and on the interaction utility (which shows overlap in Hindu-Muslim and India-Pakistan wars), I found it interesting to note that both AKG and C00 used the same phrase, "Rv nonsense," during their reverting sprees.

In fact, here AKG can be seeing coming to the rescue of C00's mass reverts which use the same excuse Solblaze (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

The filer is a ban evading sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SpicyBiryani. Capitals00 (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • See WP:NOTFISHING. SPI is not for fishing. Last time too, this same frivilous SPI was raised and was rejected. AKG has been checked multiple times since he has been blocked so why he should be checked against every single person who edits the same article? This is nothing but harassment. If anyone is really interested in combatting disruption then pay attention here instead of wasting time by entertaining frivolous requests to somehow "nail down" productive editors. Capitals00 (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: This is worth running a CU. I agree that a clear off-wiki meat-puppetry is going on.
See for example:
1. Aman.kumar.goel and CapnJackSp are the only two editors except a blocked sock and an IP (with both of its edits on the same AfD) to vote Delete.
2. CapnJackSp's first ever edit to China article was to revert @BSMRD: and restore Aman.kumar.goel's five edits.
3. CapnJackSp and Aman.kumar.goel then gang up on Talk:China.
4. Aman.kumar.goel's first edit to Talk:Pakistani Taliban is to vote Oppose on the RfC. CapnJackSp too votes Oppose on the same RfC.
5. Aman.kumar.goel and CapnJackSp back each other up on Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 against @Cinderella157:.
6. Aman.kumar.goel and CapnJackSp remove the same content on Violence against Muslims in India.
7. Aman.kumar.goel and CapnJackSp both comment on the same discussion at Talk:Murder of Kanhaiya Lal.
8. Capitals00 initiates the Move Review for Hindu terrorism following which CapnJackSp and UnpetitproleX comment to Overturn it.
9. CapnJackSp removes the same content as UnpetitproleX and then Capitals00 joins in to edit-war at Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir.
10. Aman.kumar.goel twice reverts the same content on Terrorism in Pakistan that is then removed in their first edit to the article by CapnJackSp. CapnJackSp then continues to edit-war multiple editors (incl. @IAmAtHome: & @Iskandar323:) to CENSOR the article. | 39.34.178.70 (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

The filer may well be a sock (and if so, simply indef them), but I would also like to look at this via CU, if possible. I did wonder about this when reading the current AN/ANI thread about Capitals00 revisionism. I suspect it will be negative, but we really need to check everything in this CTOP at the moment, because there is a significant amount of disruption. It took long enough to nail down AKG. Black Kite (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • no Declined - the evidence provided is too weak, and policy does not permit this sort of "blanket check". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @39.34.178.70: no Declined. Please log into your account if you're going to post here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Closing per my comments in the report above. Editors interested in reopening this case would be wise to read those comments first. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07 January 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

There is good amount of editing pattern and style to believe it is a sock of AKG for doing other stuffs including helping AKG to influence consensus on various contentious article (like this where AKG is involved.

Some evidences are:

  • Georgethedragonslayer making same edit[78] as Aman.kumar.goel[79] in the same article.
  • Again Georgethedragonslayer[80] and Aman.kumar.goel[81]
  • And again Georgethedragonslayer[82] and Aman.kumar.goel[83]

Both trying to block me using SPI Georgethedragonslayer[84] and Aman.kumar.goel[85]

Please, note that I opened a SPI case 2 years ago about this socking including User:Gopalam Reddy[86] which was not checked but later 2 of the 3 accounts were indeed blocked for socking.

I guess they are using some sort of proxies to evade the results but even meat-puppetry through off-wiki is evident. Requesting a through check this time please giving the extent of abuse by Aman.kumar.goel and his sock User:Editorkamran.

Thank you. Bringtar (talk) 08:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Indeed it has diffs from previously filed SPI case but those were clearly not refuted. The check was not even performed and this is exactly "normal" in SPI cases of Aman.kumar.goel. They became so experienced to game the system, tricking Administrators into believing that they were clean in their past SPI cases.
The have mastered it so much that initial check by Drmies found nothing in the SPI case[87] filed by Beccaynr.
The extent of their abuse using multiple accounts to influence consensus and disruptive edits definitely warrant a through checking.
Bbb23, can you please reconsider based on my last message above? Thank you. Bringtar (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the clarification and I totally understood it. I highly appreciate both of your works in this particular area. However, since multiple editors here excluding me, have raised these concerns in the past SPI cases so I will continue to gather relevant diffs and file a new report or email it when I have enough evidences. Bringtar (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Rejected more than once. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bringtar, Bbb23 was entirely correct to reject this filing, and that's not the result of administrators being fooled by some sort of mastermind socker – neither were the numerous other rejected filings in relation to this case. Filings keep getting thrown out in this case because they usually boil down to "these two people have agreed with each other on some occasions, which is clearly evidence that they're one and the same", without any accompanying diffs that would make the sort of behavioural case that actually permits us to run a check. It is not the responsibility of clerks, checkusers and administrators to construct cases on the filers' behalf; it is their responsibility to evaluate what has been presented. As long as all we have in that regard is hipfire suggestions of shared POVs, filings will not and should not go anywhere. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Aman.kumar.goel/Archive&oldid=1194572422"