Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aman.kumar.goel
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
07 January 2024
– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.
Suspected sockpuppets
- Georgethedragonslayer (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • SPI Tools
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:
Both trying to block me using SPI Georgethedragonslayer[7] and Aman.kumar.goel[8]
Please, note that I opened a SPI case 2 years ago about this socking including User:Gopalam Reddy[9] 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)
Comments by other users
- Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
- This SPI is a copy-paste of previously refuted filing found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Georgethedragonslayer/Archive. Capitals00 (talk) 10:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- 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[10] 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)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
- Rejected more than once. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)