User talk:Aman7goyal

There is one discussion about the best title for the article, and it's ongoing at Talk:Shooting of Charlie Kirk#Requested move 10 September 2025. No one is trying to "censor" you — they are just asking you put your comments with everybody else's in that section so they won't be missed when it's time for consensus to be evaluated. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Weller talk 12:21, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles 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. —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Re. your comment here: I've been blocked at least a couple of dozen times in the past, lol. Yet your account is only four days old and with no apparent blocks. What other accounts have you edited under, please? —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:28, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Do you have the warrant?

Also, why are you spying on me?

Are you a fascist dictator and is this Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four?

Aman7goyal (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:NPA. Calling a fellow editor a dictator isn't in good taste. Babysharkb☩ss2 ^(DEADMAU5) 16:56, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I asked, didn't call? What are you even talking about? This spying creeped me out so I had every right to exhibit my astonishment. Why are you even in this? Aman7goyal (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Because I'm a (talk page watcher). Also, even asking someone if they are dictators is inviting trouble. Babysharkb☩ss2 ^(DEADMAU5) 17:41, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

"trouble"? Could you be more civil please, I feel threatened by this vernacular. Also, for a watcher, you sure either missed that I was asking, or deliberately accused men of a false accusation while knowing I didn't call anyone a dictator.

Also, the person who spied on me was not you, was it some other watcher? I'm genuinely asking, not "disruptively editing." Aman7goyal (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.—Fortuna, imperatrix 17:00, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  What issue? Show me one act of offence or one disruptive edit and I'll gleefully log out forever myself.

  Don't threaten me, please. Bullying new editors does not look good for Wikipedia, no matter how prevalent it has become. Aman7goyal (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Star Mississippi 17:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

what disruptive edit? Name one? Seems like you're trying to silence me because I haven't made a single edit in last couple of days. Aman7goyal (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

You've been editing for three days. Please do not lie as we can all see your contributions and that will not increase your chances of being unblocked. Star Mississippi 17:47, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I said " haven't made a single edit in last couple of days." I didn't say "not editing at all.' read between the lines.

Also, whatever happened to "disruptive editing'? Or is all my editing disruptive?

You're the one lying here. And it's still not helping my case, is it.

List my "disruptive edits" from these three days and get it over with. How hard is it? Aman7goyal (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

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).

Aman7goyal (block log · active blocks · global blocks · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · creation log · change block settings · unblock · checkuser (log) · SI)

---

Request reason:

I have been blocked citing "disruptive editing" but I have not made a solitary edit in last couple of days, disruptive or else, and hence, the actual reasons to block me seem to be more personal and taken out of my discussions with other editors. I've been spied at and some are questioning my rhetoric where I jokingly said, "I've been blocked before," though I clearly added an "lol" alongside it. This is an attack against me and Wikipedia's civility. Kindly unblock me. Aman7goyal (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your contribution log is publicly available at Special:Contributions/Aman7goyal and utterly refutes your claim that you have not made any edits in the last couple of days. Yamla (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

This user does have another account, though the single account I'm talking about here was only soft-blocked. That is, the user was permitted to create a new account. I have not ruled out the possibility there are more than two accounts involved here, though. --Yamla (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Why are you people so obsessed with how many accounts you have? And where are my "disruptive" tweets? So I said "2 days" when it was more close to 36 hours... That was never the reason behind the block, was it?

Is it personal? Do you think I'm some right-wing Trump voter? I don't even live in USA (or Israel or Russia)! If I have not made disruptive editing, then unblock me, simple as that. Why are you so concerned with me rather than editing the Wikipedia? Aman7goyal (talk)

Aman7goyal, "edits" means anything that you post on en.wikipedia.org, not just changes to articles. Schazjmd (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Either way engaging in dialogues on user pages is NOT "disruptive editing" when I haven't caused edit war, vandalism, or donned offensive undertones.

most of this "editing" is me addressing the harassment some editors are now causing me over one admision.

It's becoming clear you're trying to find excuses to block me because I mentioned having been blocked before. Multiple people are literally one by one leaving comments here and "investigating" about my other accounts. Seriously? Aman7goyal (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)