Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aman.kumar.goel

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Beccaynr (talk | contribs) at 16:38, 16 December 2023 (→Comments by other users: add Togggle sandbox diffs). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

Populated account categories: confirmed

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aman.kumar.goel/Archive.


15 December 2023

– A checkuser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

Suspected sockpuppets

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: [1] (Dympies), [2] (Aman.kumar.goel), [3] (Dympies), [4] (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 [5].
  • At 14:57, 4 December 2023, I noted at the article talk page [6] 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 [7] ("Nobody used headline for information"), and I replied in a comment at 19:44, 2 December 2023 with diffs [8] 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 [9] 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 [10]. Dympies then appears to defend the sources offered by CharlesWain at 12:00, 8 December 2023 [11] by referring to my source review as "nitpicking".
Personalization, sentence structure and word choices
  • IP range editor - 13:00, 13 November 2023 [12] / 13:02, 13 November 2023 Dwivedi article talk [13] "...Its from 2019 and has nothing to do with what happened in "September 2023"..."
  • CharlesWain - 08:39, 7 December 2023 Dwivedi article talk [14] "2023 controversy is not same as the one from 2019. ..."
  • CharlesWain - 06:19, 8 December 2023 Dwivedi article talk [15] "If you are really going to rely on these sources ..."
  • Dympies - 12:00, 8 December 2023 Dwivedi article talk [16] "If you are seriously going to engage in this nitpicking ..."
  • Aman.kumar.goel - 18:11, 1 December 2023 BLPN [17] "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 [18] "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 [19]; is reverted with a request for talk page discussion [20]; Dympies reverts again [21]; is reverted by the other editor [22]; Aman.kumar.goel restores Dympies' version [23]
  • Shambuka - Aman.kumar.goel removes content [24]; another editor restores [25]; Dympies removes more content [26]; the other editor restores [27]; Dympies reverts [28]; the other editor restores [29] (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 [30].

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

Comments by other users

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]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • 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 ([41]).
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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Aman.kumar.goel&oldid=1190216733"