User talk:Shaan Sengupta/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Shaan Sengupta. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Resolved

(non-admin closure) ShaanSengupta^Talk 15:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is it really Wikipedia:Gaming the system to prevent very relevant WP:RFCBEFORE material from being archived? In fact, I'd argue that forcing its archival is gaming the system. Frankly, 30 days is too short. But I'm happy to get an opinion from an admin, if you like. Malerisch (talk) 12:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Pinging Robertsky, who dealt with a similar dispute over archiving at Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War. Shaan Sengupta has reverted this diff of mine, which was meant to prevent the archival of Talk:Bangladesh genocide#Disruptive edits by Lionel Messi Lover, a very relevant WP:RFCBEFORE thread that directly led to the ongoing RfC on that talk page. The archival period of the talk page is only 30 days. Was my comment reasonable? Malerisch (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Malerisch I never forced its archival. I just did what should have been done naturally. You clearly mentioned that you were commenting only to prevent the discussion from getting automatically archived. This shouldn't be done by an experienced editor like you or me otherwise the new users or IPs will also start doing same to stop threads from being archived. Also by your actions it is quite possible that if the thread doesn't see any action again then you might post a comment like this in future to prevent further archiving. Till when can it go like this? Is this correct. I am not against keeping or archiving. I just want proper method to be followed. As for 30 days, we are not the right people to decide. I agree to ask an admin. Since you have pinged one I shall leave it to them. Let's listen to his point before moving forward. ShaanSengupta^Talk 13:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I just think that it's WP:COMMONSENSE for WP:RFCBEFORE material to not suddenly be archived in the middle of an ongoing RfC, and I thought that leaving a comment would be the simplest method to accomplish that. I'm fine with the thread being archived after the RfC ends. But I will accept whatever the admin's opinion is. Malerisch (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Look that discussion is inactive bcoz of a reason. It was filed bcoz someone thought someone is being disruptive. That thing ended and the thing which replaced it was the content which should be there of the page. And this is already being discussed in the RfC. So I don't think that to discuss the same thing multiple threads are needed. Previous threads were all sandwiched that's why new RfC was started which again is sandwiched. So previous ones with little to no activity can be archived so that fresh discussions can be held. It would be helpful for newbies also is backlog is clear. This will prevent their point of view to be influenced by others. Rest I too am willing to leave on the admin. ShaanSengupta^Talk 14:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

1. If anyone thinks that 30 days is too short and boldly set to a longer archival period but was reverted, per WP:BRD, open a discussion on the talk page about setting a reasonable archival period.
2. By the way, there are more elegant ways to temporarily delay automatic archival, such {{DNAU}} template (of course, please pair it with {{pin}} or {{bump}} with an appropriate explanation for other editors explaining the delay in archival). With this template, one can delay the archival in a more granular manner, i.e. instead of 30 days, you can set it to be archived in 2 or 3 weeks time.
3. If you are involved in a current conversation... Just let the bot do the work, lest others accuse you for trying to influence the discussion in one way or another, unless the thread to be archived is noncontroversial, i.e. a relatively inconsequential edit request.
4. I have not looked in depth the content of the two sections. But are there points from the earlier section that are not already in the RfC? If so, let it just archive itself. If not, you can also leave a note to the closer somewhere in the current conversation that there is an archived thread to be taken into consideration. An experienced RfC closer may then look at that archived thread. (Personally, I prefer that the early conversation being archived as the page size of the talk page is getting heavier as the RfC rolls on.)
5. I may be wrong on this, but I don't think there are any rules or guidelines against archiving WP:RFCBEFORE material while the RfC is ongoing. A lot of RFCBEFORE discussions starts on non-related talk pages actually, i.e. at the various Village Pumps, user talk pages, WikiProject talk pages, etc, before moving to the relevant talk pages for the actual RfC. These threads end up being archived even early in the RfC conversation. And either the participants have a list/index of relevant prior discussions in the current discussion, or the references to prior discussions in the current discussion would be a clue to look for them in the relevant archives.

– robertsky (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I can accept letting the discussions automatically archive themselves. There are points I've made in that thread that I haven't mentioned in the RfC, so I'll add a link to the thread in my !vote once it's archived. Malerisch (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I am perfectly fine with this. I think this is solved. Shall I close this now @Malerisch? ShaanSengupta^Talk 15:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Malerisch (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. राजकुमार^(talk) 12:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Template:User Akhand Bharat, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Akhand Bharat and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Template:User Akhand Bharat during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 17:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

		Cookies!
		Wicontrib4 has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. I added Template:User Akhand Bharat. Can you check out my Indic Status? BTW, I too speak Bhojpuri. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}! Wicontrib4 (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.

Yamla (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Yamla the notice reads that multiple accounts is allowed but not for illegitimate reasons. I told you everything that was true still this is illegitimate? You said I am not eligible for a clean start. What do I need to do so that I can do editing on Wikipedia. ShaanSengupta^Talk 17:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

This is an illegitimate example, a clear example of WP:EVADE. Your abuse of this account makes it far less likely you'll ever be unblocked. If you don't have access to your original account and can't recover the password, you need to go at least six months with zero edits, then apply for an unblock with the oldest account you still have access to. At that point, you'll need to convince us you understand your use of this account was blatantly inappropriate and deal with the issues that lead to your original block and subsequent unrelenting sockpuppetry. I'll note you are far closer to a community ban than you are to being unblocked. --Yamla (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Yamla I did the same the last time. I went with 0 edits no new accounts. But I was told to make a request with the original account. I no longer have access to any of my previous accounts. I only can preserve this account. My original account was banned for sockpuppetry only. The first account that I created, I lost its password and created a new one and was blocked because of sockpuppetry and disruptive edits. This account stats must be satisfying to show that I no longer am disruptive. I have dealt with nearly all the issue that I had with the experience that I now carry. As you have seen that I have no sleepers, is there a way to get out of this early? Or will I be allowed to use this account after six months because I no longer have access to the previous ones. ShaanSengupta^Talk 17:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Every single edit you made with this account was disruptive. Every single edit you made with this account violated WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK. Again, you are far closer to a community ban than you are to being unblocked. Six months with zero edits is, frankly, the absolute minimum given your chronic violations. --Yamla (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Yamla Ok I will once again wait for 6 months. Just tell me one last thing, If I make the appeal after 6 months with this account, will it be considered or I will be asked to make request with original account. I have cleared that I no longer have access to any of those. ShaanSengupta^Talk 18:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

You need to clearly indicate you no longer have access to any other account, and why. --Yamla (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I confirm I no longer have any access to those accounts. I only had the detail of my last account in my previous mobile which I no longer have. Also I am not so good at remembering passwords. When I make the request with the standard offer after 6 months I will be making with this account only. All the rest accounts can be permanently locked. ShaanSengupta^Talk 18:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

You mentioned that you didn't have access to your old accounts, which is why you created this account after waiting for six months and never logged into other accounts after the creation of this one, correct? – DreamRimmer (talk) 06:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer no. My last blocked account JaggaDaaku. I had access only to that after it was blocked. I filed UTRS from it after waiting for 6 months. There I was asked to request from my original account, whose access I didn't had. That's why after that request got turned down I made new (this) account for a fresh start. I had access to JaggaDaaku till few months back (means after making this account). But I lost my mobile phone which had everything. And as mentioned above I am not very good at remembering passwords so right now I only have access to this account. If I gain access to my lost mobile then I may have access to JaggaDaaku which is very unlikely. ShaanSengupta^Talk 08:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

You created this account in May 2023, but you edited as Jagga Daaku on other wikis until 15 August 2023. If you have good intentions, why did you edit from both accounts, and why didn't you disclose earlier that Jagga Daaku is your account? – DreamRimmer (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer I didn't use this account on other wikis as JaggaDaaku was established there. And had I used two accounts on same pages it would have been a clear violation for fresh start. Also it would have given the impression that single user is using two accounts to support himself which was again wrong. But after I lost access to JD I had no option but to use only this account on other wikis too. Since I was no longer using JD, I thought its ok to not announce that. ShaanSengupta^Talk 08:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is a global policy that applies to all other Wikimedia projects. So, no matter if you were using two accounts on different wikis, it was still sockpuppetry. – DreamRimmer (talk) 09:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer I accept that I have made mistakes. But I was left with no choice. I waited after JD was blocked. I filed request for standard offer. But it was not accepted bcoz I didn't have access to my original account. That's why I made this one. I am once again willing to wait for 6 months, but its just that I want to continue using this account, and for that I can accept all the ways that are acceptable to the community. You can lock all those previous accounts globally too if you think I might use them on other projects. Just accept my plea so that I can use the standard offer with this account only. ShaanSengupta^Talk 09:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

As you mentioned, "I filed a request for a standard offer, but it was not accepted because I didn't have access to my original account. That's why I created this one." I want to advise that creating a new account despite the denial was not the right step; as a result, you have completely lost the community's trust. However, considering your desire to continue constructive editing, I have a suggestion for you: refrain from creating any new accounts in the future. Stop editing from this account today and preserve it for the future. After six months, submit a request for a standard offer. If it gets rejected, wait another six months before making another standard offer request. Continue this approach, as it is the last possible way for you to continue on Wikipedia. I cannot guarantee that you will be accepted, but I believe that admins/checkusers may consider your offer, given your willingness to volunteer and commitment to not breaking the rules again. This is my last reply here. Happy not-editing. – DreamRimmer (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I hope this is not the blocked user. Thewikizoomer (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Mentioned it because the edit summary. WP:DUCK Thewikizoomer (talk) 12:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

also the pages that they're editing. overall pattern. (limited) Thewikizoomer (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Thewikizoomer I agree that the username and edit summary match with this user, but we should assume good faith, as @Blablubbs sleeper-checked Shaan Sengupta again on January 27 and found nothing. – DreamRimmer (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha! Thewikizoomer (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thewikizoomer, DreamRimmer, Blablubbs Don't worry. You can run checks every day/week if you want. I am not making another account. I am just hoping that when I apply for standard offer after 6 months it is accepted and I am pardoned for my mistakes so that I can continue the good work that I have done until now. Since I am blocked and writing this I would request if it's right to keep an eye on 2024 Indian general election page where a user is vandalising it consistently. I even warned them on their talk page but they won't listen. Elections happen in India after 5 years so 2029 is the next after 2024 but they are repeatedly mentioning 2028. The user goes by Manaal or something. If you can fix please. I am making this single request only bcoz I came to write about SPI. See you all after 6 months. ShaanSengupta^Talk 19:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

You are now not eligible for WP:SO until 2024-07-28. Each time you edit this page, you reset the timer. --Yamla (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

It's sad that your account has been blocked. Many times these stupid Wikipedia admins also suspected me for sockpuppetry without any valid reasons. They blocked many innocent Wikipedia users without any valid reasons. I think this is too much giving fake allegations and blocking accounts of hard working contributors. Vikepro (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• Zendrago X I have decided to wait for 6 months and take WP:SO and I know that this will reset the timer. But this is necessary. I see that you have filed a SPI saying that Aparupa Sengupta 1991 is my account. The reason you gave is of same name, editing similar pages and maybe some more. I would request you to make it a CU request if you suspect it being me for a technical check. Bcoz I am here to tell you its not me and also giving you much better proof as to who that might be. Note that previously a account was made to impersonate me as Shaan Sengupta 2.0. I believe this is also just other attempt by making me suspect of using different account. That account was made even before SPI report was filed against me. I can also give you some similarities. All the previous socks had a deep connection with Bengal and Leftist Communist parties. This sock is also the same. If you see their contributions history it shows they edit West Bengal related articles the most. They even edit local body elections of West Bengal just like the previous socks did. Also I see that you are involved in a discussion with them at their talk page. Do you really believe that I will do something that I was fighting against before I got blocked. I repeatedly argued against adding minor political parties with the socks of Srimonbanik2007. And in that discussion they have accepted that they are from West Bengal. Just looking at their talk page and contributions will clear a lot of things. This SPI might help you. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Srimonbanik2007. If this satisfies you, you might report him to correct place and remove the report from my investigation page. Or you can keep it at both places if you still suspect. I would once again request you to request a CU and report Aparupa to Srimonbanik2007. You can also ping involved CUs/Admins/clerks in the new report. And once again guys, I am not making any new accounts. And I believe I will now directly log in when 6 months from today pass. ShaanSengupta^Talk 03:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Shaan Sengupta After noticing him from many days I have already found that he was not you because he was editing like that Marxist named user. But it was late as after filing a report it cannot taken back, so if that user is not you then don't worry admins will remove it. I'm Sorry for it. ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 13:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Shaan Sengupta Can you please ping the administrators who previously handled this issue, as they may be able to help. If the socks are impersonating as you reported them, then they may also impersonate others who will do same. ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 13:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  Zendrago X since I am blocked, I believe I can't inform them. But I gave the SPI link of Srimonbanik2007 above. You can take a help from it and as far as the case filed by you is concerned you can mention there that you believe that Aparupa is not my sock but that of Srimonbanik. This will save admins time also. Also I would request that since you too think the same as me, you should file SPI of Aparupa as sock of Marxist/Happyjit and Srimonbanik as Sock Master. Thanks. I hope you can take care of the rest. Also you can mention link to this discussion at those SPIs. 13:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC) ShaanSengupta^Talk 13:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Izno, just to clear the air over similar name of the blocked sock in SPI case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Srimonbanik2007. Aparupa Sengupta 1991 is not the first try to impersonate me. They have done it previously too with Shaan Sengupta 2.0 and with this account they claimed to be me. I hope this clears any doubt. If you guys still have something you can run a CU check. Also to inform it has been run multiple times on me to check sleepers but none were found. I can guarantee that I am not returning with another account and will wait for another 6 months for WP:SO from today. Thank you. ShaanSengupta^Talk 01:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Do not reply to this message. I am sorry that you are blocked. I hope that you get unblocked some time; but you will need to be able to accept or tolerate delays, problems, or suffering without becoming annoyed or anxious. Best of luck.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Next Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Soni (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2024 (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).

Shaan Sengupta (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello everyone, I am placing this Unblock request after I was blocked for sockpuppetry in Jan 2024. I made some talk page edits after that which reset my timer. The last edit I made was on 17th Feb 2024 and now is 18th Aug 2024. So I am making this request as a WP:SO for which I was directed by the blocking checkuser @Yamla. I would like to begin with accepting that I have made mistakes in the past. In my initial days I have been disruptive and my contributions were not always according to the guidelines. But with this account I tried my best to contribute in a generous way and I believe I did that. The only mistake I made was that I did Block evasion. I regret that. I would apologise for that and request the community to give me a chance. For these 6 months I wasn't just sitting and waiting for this time to pass. I made contributions to other projects. Initially to Hindi and Bhojpuri Wikipedia. Mostly on Wikimedia Commons and some on Wikidata. Also the reason for filling this unblock request from this account and not from my original account is bcoz I only have access to this account. My last account JaggaDaaku which I used on other wikis, I lost access to it after my phone was lost. The only way I could get access to it is if I ever get access to my lost phone which still is unlikely. Better word would be nearly impossible. And I also told that sadly I am not good at remembering passwords. And I preserved this bcoz I used this account on Commons. So there is no way I can make an unblock request with any other (original) account. I promise that I won't let the community down for trusting me and am fully prepared to fix if any (I am sure may be) issues still need to be addressed. Thank you. ShaanSengupta^Talk 12:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I find this vague and general apology to inadequately address the extensive sockpuppetry and POV-pushing attested to in the relevant SPI case _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:58, 28 October 2024 (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.

ShaanSengupta^Talk 12:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

No CU evidence of block evasion. However, you should be making your unblock request with your original account. --Yamla (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@Yamla Thank you for the reply. I mentioned this at the time of blocking also that I only have access to this account. My last account JaggaDaaku which I used on other wikis, I lost access to it after my phone was lost. The only way I could get access to it is if I ever get access to my lost phone which still is unlikely. Better word would be nearly impossible. And I also told that sadly I am not good at remembering passwords. And I preserved this bcoz I used this account on Commons. So there is no way I can make an unblock request with any other (original) account. Thanks. ShaanSengupta^Talk 12:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@Yamla Sorry for this ping. I know you have workload and you might be occupied somewhere else. But if you could please act on my unblock request. It would be nice. ShaanSengupta^Talk 14:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I will not be doing so. --Yamla (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

So will it be decided by someone else? Will I have to wait in line with other requests? Just asking bcoz I am not aware of the process. I pinged @you bcoz I had seen in cases, admins asking for blocking admin/CU involvement. Thank you. ShaanSengupta^Talk 14:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Please don't ping me again. Yes, it will be reviewed by another admin in time. --Yamla (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you and sorry. (Not pinging you ) ShaanSengupta^Talk 15:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• This account was certainly disruptive on Indian topics. I would prefer no unblock without a topic ban from the WP:ARBIPA area. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Ratnahastin I would request you to kindly provide some examples of what you are saying. I mostly (maybe only) edit articles related to India. And I am yet to be called disruptive. I won't say I haven't made mistakes, but definitely I have made corrections whenever I have been guided. And I am going to continue to do so. I remember our interests were conflicting in some areas and I would strongly like to believe that this isn't bcoz of that. ShaanSengupta^Talk 14:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

You were criticized for your pro-Hindutva editing on ANI which you had to close yourself despite you were not allowed to do that. Your disruption at Father of the nation was not small. Nevertheless, you did not learn and kept repeating the same POV pushing at this MfD. I haven't even talked about your other accounts yet. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin two of the links you mentioned are for the same topic of Father of the Nation. Regarding me closing the discussion it was done after an advice from an uninvolved user to continue it at the article's talk page. And that's the only thing I mentioned there. The reason to close was so that the discussion could continue on the talk page and no one else comments there. And my only point was to differentiate the Official vs Unofficial regarding that honor. Like Sheikh Mujib & MK Gandhi shouldn't be kept under same criteria. One has got the title officially by his country, other is just called respectfully by his followers and many of the countrymen. Regarding the MFD of my template, I just put forward my view. Putting forward a view in an MfD isn't POV pushing. Its just mentioning what one sees it as. Anyway I would want to stop here. And once again reiterate that even if I still have some shortcomings please let me know. I am fully destined to work on them. Handing me a topic block of this wide range (ARBIPA) would make me nearly worthless here bcoz most of my edits are in this area only. And I am sure that after 6600-odd edits my track record here will be my voice. Now, The community knows both our views. Let the admins/CUs decide. Thank you. ShaanSengupta^Talk 15:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I had a lot of experience of dealing with Shaan Sengupta and my impression was that he was a good editor, who behaved well.^{Interaction Editor} Yes, he made mistakes, and misunderstood things, but new editors do that. I do not understand how any reasonable person can say that this edit to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Akhand Bharat was disruptive. (It was Shaan Sengupta's only edit to that page and Ratnahastin lists Shaan Sengupta's edit to that page as an example of Shaan Sengupta being disruptive. Note that Ratnahastin made a "delete" post on that page; but having a different opinion is not in itself disruptive.) With respect of Ratnahastin's other example: yes, Shaan Sengupta blundered; but it was not malicious.
Please could admins unblock Shaan Sengupta. I do not see a case for a topic ban.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The fact that he created that pro-Hindutva userbox and then defended it was disruptive.

Do you really believe that an editor who believes that reliable sources like Newslaundry,[1] Scroll.in, [2] The News Minute[3] to be unreliable and he should be unblocked without a topic ban? I don't find any sense there. You are forgetting that he evaded his block for 3 years through socks. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin I was corrected by an experienced user and after that I gladly accepted my mistake and we moved on. And I can't see a reason that failure to recognise reliability of a source would amount to topic ban. I can't understand the connection between. Regarding block evasion, I have accepted my mistake on that too and this WP:SO unblock request is in accordance with the rules and guidelines only. Again, I would repeat that the community knows both our views. Let them decide. Thank you.

Also thanks @Toddy1. I am glad that I continue to get your guidance. Thank you so much. Means a lot. ShaanSengupta^Talk 16:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Shaan Sengupta has on several occasions edited with a Hindu nationalist POV. I question if he is able to edit with a neutral POV in the WP:CT/IPA topic area.

• He openly identified as a supporter of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the leading far-right Hindu nationalist organization, with a self-created userbox on his user page. Surely this violates the spirit of WP:NONAZIS? I don't think the Wikipedia community would be quite as lenient on someone who openly declared himself as, say, a white nationalist on his user page.
• He supported Akhand Bharat (comparisons have been made with other irredentist beliefs like Nazi Germany's Lebensraum) in another self-made userbox on his user page and supported keeping it at its MfD, saying that he can't understand what is divisive when all it talks about is uniting the divided parts into one.
• He repeatedly edit-warred to remove the Taj Mahal picture from Template:User Indian and stated that Indo-Islamic is not Indian ancestry. This reflects a Hindu nationalist belief that the Taj Mahal isn't sufficiently Indian, as it was built during Muslim rule: [4] [5] [6].
• He tried to tag Mahatma Gandhi with "unofficial" and removed an image of Gandhi in the Father of the Nation article. As pointed out at AN/I, Hindu nationalists aren't big fans of Gandhi: [7] [8] [9].
• He pushed a Hindu nationalist interpretation of the Bangladesh genocide by saying that the victims were "primarily" Bengali Hindus, something that sources don't support. (Sources support "especially" but not "primarily".) Hindu nationalists like to call this a "Hindu genocide": [10] [11]. That being said, I'll give him credit for not outright supporting "Bengali Hindus" in the RfC.

Malerisch (talk) 08:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

BJP-type views are mainstream in present-day India. If we want Wikipedia articles on India to be neutral point of view (NPOV), we need to tolerate pro-BJP editors (and insist that they obey the rules).-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Nazism was also mainstream in Germany for more than a decade. Were we supposed to tolerate it? A bigger problem with Shaan Sengupta is that his edits reflect his POV. Ratnahastin (talk) 11:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I think this should be discussed first, I agree with @Ratnahastin, Shaan Sengupta's edits are however one sided. Regarding the comment of @Toddy1, I think they might be following the rules but still they are causing harm to various pages here, one user has given an example above. The user was still using his account on Wikipedia Commons and various other Wikipedia. ZDX _{(User) | (Contact)} 14:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@ZDX regarding your comment that I was still using my account on Commons and others. It is as per the advice available at WP:SO. Banned users seeking a return are advised to make significant and useful contributions to other WMF projects prior to requesting a return to the English Wikipedia per this offer. Many unban requests have been declined due to the banned user simply waiting six months without making any contributions to other projects. And the first two points of the Standard Offer is It's simple: Wait at least six months, without sockpuppetry or block evasion; i.e. having made no edits, using a named account or an IP address, on the English Wikipedia. Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban. ShaanSengupta^Talk 14:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing all of this out @Malerisch. I will address everything one by one.

• To me RSS is a social organisation which carries out social works and strives to protect the Indian heritage and the Indian culture. This organisation has time and again helped the nation, most recently in the Wayanad disaster. If Wikipedia identifies the organisation as a Neo-Nazi, then I am left with nothing to say on this matter.
• Regarding the Akhand Bharat template, it is a belief that the country of our ancestors which is now divided into many parts should come back as one again. And by no means I support any violence or achieving it by force. I am proud that my country has given the message of peace to this world time and again. And this concept in my view follows the same principle.
• Regarding Template:User Indian it was just reverted twice from both ends. Then to follow the general rule, I started a discussion at the user talk page of the editor involved. We agreed on a common point, and it was modified accordingly. Then he once again removed it. I once again went to his talk page. We sorted it out. Then after I was blocked the user restored it going against that discussion. And Taj is a mixture of Indo-Islamic architecture with Arabic influence. Here we are talking about Indian ancestry. Not a mix of Indo-Arab.
• I have already explained the Gandhi thing above. There is nothing like pushing a POV. It was just a fact that I thought should be mentioned. But I left it after I wasnt able to convince the community.
• Regarding the RfC of Bangladeshi genocide, I agree that the word especially would have been a better choice than primarily. And I am glad that you accepted that I didn't outrightly supported what was wrong.

If something more needs my explanation I am happy to give. And I will once again say, that I am ready to make any required changes that should be. I know that I have some shortcomings like everyone has and I am ready to address it. I have been away for 6 months. I would request the community to give me a chance so that I can contribute in a constructive way. Thank you. ShaanSengupta^Talk 12:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

If you consider RSS as a social organisation. It shows how brainwashed insane you are. You must've no right to edit in neutral media like Wikipedia. RSS is responsible for the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. It was banded from India multiple times as terrorist organisation. 171.48.92.26 (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Hello @Rosguill, thank you for your input. I explained everything I could regarding the sockpuppetry. I regret for what I have done. While the past cannot be undone, all I can do is apologize and make sure its not repeated. I listened to every concern by the community and replied to everyone according to my view. I am still prepared to acknowledge and rectify my mistakes when given a chance. Regarding the POV pushing accusations, I can confirm that it wasn't my motive. But if I still have done that I apologise and promise that it won't be done any longer. If the community still has some issues, I am prepared to not make any edit to the contentious topics/pages related to Indian politics. I can restrict myself to improving only the basics if I am allowed. I can restrict my actions if the community asks me to do. Give me a chance, see my work on other topics. Then after a while, if the community regains confidence in me and allows me to edit those pages too, then I will do that. Its been 8 months since I was blocked for SP. In the meantime I was active on Commons. I have made sure that all of my contributions tgere are helpful. I will once again request the community to give me a chance. I would prefer to make another unblock request only after I have addressed every shortcomings that I am asked to. Thank you. ShaanSengupta^Talk 09:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

You should accept a topic ban from anything about India, given your extensive sockpuppetry related to this subject then you can appeal this sanction after 6 months of productive editing. That would assure the community that you can edit in this area. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin I would believe that Indian politics would be better bcoz that's the place where I am accused of doing wrong. I am ok with having not edit that for 6 months. Not editing anything related to India means a lot of pages. For example articles about railway station or cities or historical places are the things which are not contentious. But still, as I said if the community believes that a blanket ban on topic India is required then I am ok. I would make productive contributions to other fields and prove my worth. Thank you. ShaanSengupta^Talk 10:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

But there are also more than 190 other countries about which you can edit. Then there are also subjects where any country is almost irrelevant such as Pepsi, Medicine, and more. To suggest that you can only edit about India would not be helpful for you. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood me on this one. I know there are so many other fields to work on. I just mentioned that not everything related to India is contentious. At top of all this, as I said I am ok if the community thinks that I should be barred from editing India related topics altogether. I will try my best to prove my worth with other fields too. ShaanSengupta^Talk 13:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

No problem. I will support your next unblock request as you have agreed to a topic ban from India. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Ratnahastin. I am now just waiting for a comment from @Rosguill to see if there is something he needs me to clarify. ShaanSengupta^Talk 14:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't have any further comments at this time. Any future unblock requests will be evaluated by another admin. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Shaan Sengupta (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello everyone. This is the second unblock request that I am making after the first was declined for not addressing the sockpuppetry & POV pushing. Please refer to the thread above. Just for the information I was blocked in Jan 2024 and now Oct is about to end. Now I will try to address both the issues. *Sockpuppetry: My orginal account (which I no longer have access to) was blocked for being disruptive within very few days. I made another got blocked for Sockpuppetry. Then made other and was blocked again for being disruptive and was later discovered to be a sock account. Being honest, I had no idea of SPI policy of Wikipedia until I made JaggaDaaku (referred as JD, hereinafter) and it was blocked for Sockpuppetry. Then I waited for 6 months to apply for WP:SO. As my TP was revoked I made a UTRS appeal and was told to make the request from my original account. As I said, I had no access to that so I was left with nowhere to go. Then I made another mistake and I made this account. I thought this will be considered a fresh start. I was wrong. After spending some time this was also blocked for Sockpuppetry after an investigation report was filed by DreamRimmer and I accepted that before as soon as I got to know about that. Bcoz this time I didn't want to give false excuses. I was again told to wait for 6 months and apply for WP:SO. I will remind that I now only have access to this account and not any others. I had access to JD after I made this one. But my mobile was stolen and I could not retrieve it bcoz of my not so good habit of forgetting passwords. Now I only have access to this one. *POV pushing accusations on India (mainly political) related topics: I would like to confirm that my motive was never to do so. I know I have made mistakes but the past can't be rewritten. All I can do is apologize and make sure it doesn't happen in the future. And I promise it won't. Some users like Ratnahastin and Malerisch suggested no unblock without me being barred from WP:ARBIPA. If the community thinks that it is necessary I am prepared for that. I humbly accept my wrongs and promise to prove my worth when given a chance. Please refer to the thread above for this discussion. I would also like to note, as per the advice at WP:SO, I was not just waiting for 6 months to get over. I have continued making contributions to other projects mostly on Wikimedia Commons and a bit on Hindi Wikipedia. If there is something more that needs my explanation or I need to accept something plz tell me I am happy to do so. I would once again request the community to give me a chance. Thank you. ShaanSenguptaTalk 15:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Shaan Sengupta (talk · contribs) is conditionally unblocked subject to a single account restriction and an indefinite topic ban from all edits covered by WP:ARBIPA, appealable to the community via WP:AN after nine months and, if unsuccessful, every six months thereafter. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support unblocking with topic ban from anything related to India. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Yamla, Shaan's contributions at Commons look good and I'm inclined to conditionally unblock if Shaan consents to an indefinite ARBPIA TBAN, reviewable in 9 months. Also requesting you run a CU check please. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

No recent block evasion according to WP:CHECKUSER data. Assuming the original sock master account is EditingGodguru, the blocking admin there would be Blablubbs and I see a significant number of sock accounts. That said, I'd be okay with an unblock on that basis, with additionally a single-account restriction. --Yamla (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Note that I meant WP:ARBIPA, not ARBPIA, above. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Here are the specific terms I'm thinking: Shaan Sengupta (talk · contribs) is conditionally unblocked subject to an indefinite topic-banned from all edits covered by WP:ARBIPA, appealable to the community via WP:AN after nine months and, if unsuccessful, every six months thereafter. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts & @Yamla thanks for the update. I have already agreed to both the conditions i.e. an indefinite block from WP:ARBIPA (appealable to the community) & single account restrictions. I myself had mentioned that I am ok with all the previous accounts locked globally, bcoz I no longer have access to any of them. Overall, I agree to all the above things that the community has till now proposed. Thank you. ShaanSengupta^Talk 03:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• @Voorts & @Yamla since you two are involved here in this successful unblock request. I have two requests. Can I add images to the pages who maybe are covered under the topic ban. Only images bcoz I have some on commons while I was blocked here. I promise not edit even a letter. Other is can I edit user templates related to India like this one or this one, the later being created by me only. Thank you. ShaanSengupta^Talk 10:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

No, adding images to articles covered by your topic ban would be a violation of your topic ban. It's unclear to me if the templates are covered by your topic ban. Please don't edit those unless Voorts indicates it would be okay. --Yamla (talk) 11:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The topic ban is ARBIPA, which applies to all pages (not just articles), broadly construed. I think those templates would be covered. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Yamla & @Voorts. Last question (for now), Can I atleast make an edit request on the talk pages of the articles so that others can add the images. ShaanSengupta^Talk 13:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

No edit requests either. You need to stay away from the topic completely. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Voorts sorry for the trouble. But Toddy1 just let me know at their talk page, that I might have violated my TBan with the creation of my user page. I apologise, if I have violated the terms of my unblock, i.e. the TBan. I would request you to delete my userpage if its creation violates the Tban. This won't be repeated. Thank you and sorry. ShaanSengupta^Talk 22:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Deleted, but you should create a new one that doesn't violate the TBAN since the page is currently being populated by your meta userpage. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts  Done please let me know if there is anything in the new page that still violates the TBan. I shall be happy to remove it. Thank you. ShaanSengupta^Talk 01:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Welcome back, Shaan! Great to have you here again. – DreamRimmer (talk) 07:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank u so much @DreamRimmer. Both for this welcome msg & the way u showed me to win back community's trust & get unblocked. Thank u once again. ShaanSengupta^Talk 11:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, it seems you violated your topic ban by participating in an ANI thread concerning an Indian film as well as making references to India and Andhra Pradesh[12][13][14]. Note that once you are banned from a topic, you are not allowed to even talk about it, thanks. - Ratnahastin (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello @RH. I know it, Pppery told me there. I way on the ANI when that came up. At first I was going to leave it only after telling the reporting user that they should inform the user they are complaining against at there TP as per rule. In doing that I thought of going through the article's TP to see if they have tried to discuss it and give my input only on behavioural grounds, which I did. But the curse word made me mention the article's TP there. And then I added the comment of present day.... later not realising that I was at wrong there. Regarding the sensitivity one, it just came out. I won't justify myself. I know I did wrong, though it was pure unintentional. But before I could realise, I had done already it. And when Pppery told me to disengage, I did that and didn't even reply to them. Once again I would apologise to the community. Sorry and Thank you. ShaanSengupta^Talk 17:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Template:User Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Template:User Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts per my conditional unblock, am I allowed to put forward my view at this deletion discussion, since this template was created by me. You can see the unblock conditions here at my talk archive. If I am not allowed to edit that page, can I put it here and maybe you or Ratnahastin will copy it there. Thank you. ShaanSengupta^Talk 07:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

No. Your topic ban means that you cannot participate, and you cannot ask other editors to participate. Even commenting on your user talk page is forbidden.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

And please do not click "like" against edits in favour of keeping this template. That too would be a breach of your topic ban. (You have not done this, and I do not want you to start doing this.)-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)