Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adityasaxena.corp/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Adityasaxena.corp

Adityasaxena.corp (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
13 October 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Since the Gregorykarn account was created on the 27th of September, the two accounts have been editing the same articles/talk pages simultaneously - and neither has shown much interest in any other article. A simple comparison of contributions [1] [2] seems ample evidence, though note a similar reluctance for talk page use, frequent failure to provide edit summaries etc. And note how Adityasaxena.corp turned up at the Neil Armstrong article to edit-war in contentious material (disparaging to Islam - which seems to be their pet peeve) shortly after Gregorykarn was reverted by two different people - see the revision history: [3] AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the statements below, even if taken at face value, this is a clear case of meatpuppetry. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disparaging Islam? Kindly review your statement. Nothing has been done to disparage Islam. All work is directed against fundamentalist ideologies / Hoaxes / Pseudo Concepts and fighting ignorance. Not one single statement has been against any religion. --Gregorykarn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone seems to be hurt personally because some one slapped a anti warring tag on his talk page in a minor incident. Islamophobia warring is a funny example. One should refer to the context. User AndyTheGrump seems to be pursuing a more personal issue without substantial weight. --Gregorykarn (talk)


Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Comment: Neither of the two users signs their talk page posts. They all get signed by bot. (Not a proof, but a piece of circumstancial evidence). Both identify as students of the University of Bristol. This is almost too obvious. Maybe it is rather a case of meat puppetry: Adityasaxena invited his university friend Gregorykarn to Wikipedia to support him. --RJFF (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am Gregory Karn. I am a post doctoral research scholar at University of Toronto in Chemistry. Adityasaxena.corp is my flatmate. He is a student of computer science. --Gregorykarn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MTPPT.

I am a student at univ bristol. Greg is a exchange scholar from Univ Toronto. Yes we are friends. I invited him to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adityasaxena.corp (talk • contribs) 22:36, 13 October 2012

MEATPUPPET says "A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining." The remedy in this case is being blocked for edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yup - and look at the way slapped an edit-warring template on my talk page: User_talk:AndyTheGrump#October 2012 (and at how one responds for the other - talk about collusion...). If this actually is two different people, it makes no difference whatsoever, as far as I can see. Note that they've been involved together in editing (and edit-warring) Islamophobia - a particularly contentious article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to engage in any sort of edit warring. I both new users and Adi is helping me understand Wikipedia. And we have been contributing to the community with all effort. --Gregorykarn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to state that User: AndyTheGrump has been impolite in his discourse during editing of Neil Armstrong article. Which is a source of concern. This is rather being pursued as a personal attack --Gregorykarn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is 'being used as' a sockpuppetry investigation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Islamophobia have been discussed with patience. New arguments were presented every time. Edit war would mean someone is trying to impose the viewpoint. In all cases different views have been discussed. References changed, cited people changed. Yes arguments existed on all articles. Some have been accepted others have not been accepted. Clarify what one means by a edit war. Edits have been reverted only with relevant additions and subtractions. Edit war claim seems to be weak. --Gregorykarn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still going with the 'flatmate' story? The "new users [sic] and Adi is helping me understand Wikipedia" one? Rather hard to believe, if one compares your edit summaries with Adi's - are you perchance telepathic? Or clones? And how did you end up editing the Neil Armstrong article seven minutes after Adi stopped, unless you were colluding? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OMG what a coincidence. We saw some one invalidating valid sources citing one of them was from onion and not valid. Seven minutes. How significant is 7 mins here. We have a common kitchen and dining room. We are non conservative and protectors of "Free Speech". So much that when we see something funny and "blasphemous" happening we call each other out and have a laugh. We eat and cook together. Discussions keep happening. 7 mins is a long time on a weekend. Wonder why it took so long. Cheers mate good luck to you. --Gregorykarn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly make new rules for Wikipedia in which students studying in the same university and same flat and eating and drinking together cannot join Wikipedia. Thanks for the commendable effort. --Gregorykarn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The existing rules are perfectly adequate. If there are two of you, it was meatpuppetry. If there is only one, it was sockpuppetry. Both are against policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! get us blocked then. Pasting something off your profile. - "Can I ask for the block to be extended? Clearly I'd be better off not visiting this lunatic asylum where the 'punishment' handed out is in inverse proportion to the gravity of the 'crimes'. A longer block would at least make clear that mine was a minor offence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2012". --Gregorykarn (talk)

Simply would like to cite that rules are man made as is Wikipedia. It is not perfect. If it is "Adequate" then Wikipedia will be a stagnant place as "necessity is the mother of invention". No invention no science. Adequacy is rooted in conservatism and we are liberals here. --Gregorykarn (talk)

lol Greg 13:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adityasaxena.corp (talk • contribs)

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


17 October 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Only one change to one article, an article created by the master. Both are UK university students. Meat/sock User:Gregorykarn also added university userbox to userpage. Plus the timing. Plus the username. Could be just a coincidence, but seems a bit unlikely if this is not meat/sock. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2012 (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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Adityasaxena.corp/Archive&oldid=518734211"