Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vivin

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Vivin

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Vivin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Uzhuthiran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rashtrakooda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Avinesh Jose T 04:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

I strongly believe that User:Vivin is a sock puppet or meatpuppet of User:Uzhuthiran. First Uzhuthiran is been used for the same interest in adding the copy edit and grammer tags on Santhosh George Kulangara and later supported by Vivin who just simply added the tags without any discussion on the talk page. Kindly check the status of both. If it is not socks, Uzhuthiran must have informed Vivin through Email as a meatpuppet.

This is a bogus case with little or no merit. This editor has a history of sockpuppeteering and I think he's doing this because I filed one against him a while ago. I came across this article because apparently I had the sockpuppet page (that I originally created for the sockpuppet case that I filed) listed on my watchlist which showed a change on it. So I went to take a look and eventually ended up at the aforementioned article. You'll notice that after adding the tags I went through and cleaned up the article. Further notice that the tags weren't added there by the original editor frivolously. The article had serious grammar, spelling, and tone issues. This not the first time this editor has run afoul of WP:OWN. He seems to regard an attempts at improving his articles as 'vandalism' and calls it so. --vi5in^[talk] 06:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My previous sock case was closed without my comment and explanation as I was away from WP during that time. My later explanation was added in my talk page. About User:Vivin an edit warrior especially in Nair related article’s came to my article, i.e. Santhosh George Kulangara as a surprise and commented that the article has serious grammatical errors. Please note that it was edited by many editors and corrected/chopped numerous stuff from it. Therefore, I filed this case. Anyway, still, I request admins to check the status of User:Uzhuthiran and User:Vivin and I am not interested to further comment on this issue. Thanks. --Avinesh Jose T 06:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your previous two sock cases were closed after they proved beyond a doubt that you are the puppetmaster. Your explanations were weak and your unblock request was denied. You know, I just realized something. Let us assume for the sake of argument that you are saying the truth and that the editors mentioned in your previous sock cases are not your socks. You and I have interacted previously (meaning, before all of this) on a very limited basis. In fact, I remember writing on your talk page actually thanking you for trying to help with a dispute. In fact, I had no idea that you were the puppetmaster until the admin in the RFCU stated it. I thought that Harjk was a sock of Tomb (or the other way round). Users Harjk and Tomb have consistently accused me of targeting them and also of 'vandalism'. Now I notice that you accused me of doing the same in this sock case and on my talk page. How can you say that I have been targeting you if you and I have rarely interacted? If they weren't your socks, I'd think that you'd assume good faith on the basis that you and I never interacted (for sake of argument of course). The logical conclusion is that you are lying and the sockpuppets mentioned in your previous cases are your socks. In addition, it is also immediately obvious that you have WP:OWN issues. I request the admin to close this case. It's a waste of time. --vi5in^[talk] 15:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the admin, also note that Avinesh has never really involved himself in the Nair article. However Harjk and Tomb extensively involved themselves in the article. I find it odd that Avinesh would know so much about the article, assuming (only for argument's sake of course) that Harjk and Tomb are not his socks. --vi5in^[talk] 15:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, I only noticed it from the moment I was accused as a sock with harjk. Moreover, Nair is added in my watchlist along with thousands of Kerala related articles since I am a Kerala wikipedian. --Avinesh Jose T 04:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good one. --vi5in^[talk] 02:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs from RFCU:

Comments

User:Vivin is by and large a very sensible, judicious editor excepting for his obession with casteist junk. User:Avineshjose on the other hand is an ignorant SPA whose chief purpose is to create advertorial stuff on business men and business houses. It looks very much like that he is a paid editor. His reverts on Santhosh George Kulangara, which brought back much nonsense I removed, suggests that he is impervious to reasoning. This frivolous and extremely bad faith accusation of socking should be severely dealt with. I have already stated that I am a banned user. Still, he had the cheek to hurl this accusation against a user who has been editing for many years. Uzhuthiran (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uzhuthiran, someone has to clean up the 'casteist junk' ;) --vi5in^[talk] 15:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uzhuthiran is lying, as per his userlog, he is not a banned user. (I’m not much sure about his banned sock id’s). As Vivin’s support on Uzhuthiran as ‘casteist junk cleaner’ does not applicable anywhere as Uzhuthiran’s contribs proves that he has opened this account on 1 September 2007 and hardly edited 50 times in which he was mainly interested in accusing me as a paid editor and attacking only Labour India and Santhosh George Kulangara. It is against our policy i.e WP:NPA accusing an editor as a paid which is not at all justifiable. Those who are looking at my contribs could see it well that whether I am a paid/not. I clearly stated my intention creating article is well available in my user page. I AM VERY HAPPY THAT UZHITHARAN’S LATEST VANDALISMS IN MY USER PAGE AND HERE, WERE REVERTED BY OTHER EDITORS. --Avinesh Jose T 05:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to myself as the "junk cleaner". --vi5in^[talk] 02:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I find the evidence Inconclusive with regards to any of these accounts being linked. Although there are cross-overs between the areas of interest and the precise points of views, I feel them to be a rough over-lap rather than exact match. The behavioural evidence is not strong enough here, I feel. No blocks placed; closing report. Anthøny 14:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]