Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eshwar.om/Archive

12 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

I am using mobile so cannot paste the rev due to tech prob. I will provide the revision numbers. Article: Tirumala venkateswara temple Rev diff between and. Also new article has been created for supporting, the user do not have any other edit than supporting. I am requesting checkuser, because the article I mentioned is currently witnessing move page war and user:eshwar.om is making controversial edits and as the move is currently under voting, sockpuppets may have been used. Shri Ram Talk tome 18:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments



 * Master blocked for a month, socks indef'd. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  22:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

20 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

See 533550091 of User:Eshwar.om1 which says

"Unfortunately My Previous Account has blocked for 1 month.For further involvement I am Using this account.Eshwar.om is my another Account.Thank you!"

---

Eshwar.om is currently blocked "17:11, January 12, 2013 DeltaQuad (talk Piandcompany (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Way too obvious to need a CU. I have indeffed the sock and reset the master's block. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

14 July 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

This edit is a marker of Eshwar.Om as can be seen from Talk:Shiva. In addition, the language and structure of this set of edits mirrors Eshwar.om's. I'm involved, so bringing it here for someone else to do the duck test and/or CU. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  09:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks and, I'm just pinging  as he has more recent involvement with the master account to see if he can provide any more behavioral insight. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What you say does make sense, but then there's Jyoti (goddess) which falls entirely in Eshwar.om territory, so I'm not sure about it. But I agree that not much can be done right now with the lack of technical evidence and it's better to wait until stronger behavioral evidence comes up. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  09:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I see the resemblance in username, and overlap in articles of interest, but this user seems able to present different and non-Sangam views, which is something Eshwar.om really struggled with. There are other issues like lack of sourcing with Omguy's edits but that is not an issue for SPI (and they are at least not ref-bombing irrelevant Google Book links, unlike Eshwar.om!), and I can believe the CU user result that the two are unrelated. SpacemanSpiff has a great nose for socks, and I have been wrong before, but suggest we close this for now and just keep an eye on future edits. Abecedare (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - per provided evidence.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  11:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Technically, and  are ❌.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the technical data, the behavioral evidence isn't overwhelming enough to consider a block. I'm closing this case with no action taken. Mike V • Talk 04:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)