Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ism schism

User:Ism schism

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

Gouranga(UK) (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

 
 * Evidence

 

I suspect User:Ism schism to be using the account User:MBest-son as a sock puppet to add weight to their attempts at having pages in relation to ISKCON removed using the argument of perceived lack of reliable sources. The claim in regards to reliable sources is true in some cases, but using a sock puppet account in this way is certainly not the correct way to do this. See evidence above of very similar edits on identical pages. Both users are practically brand new, with no edit history. Both made edits during the same time period on 10th Feb. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Comment Gouranga, this is a new low for you. It is sick that you would use such a "hook or crook" move. I suspect it is User talk: Wikidas or one of his socketpuppets User talk: 79.97.0.103. Both are recent editors and the last notice I left on Wikidas's talk page was Biographies of living persons. My comments were originally sent to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. So this nomination is really a counter move.Ism schism (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are a new user, then why say "this is a new low for me?" as if you've know me for some time? Untill the past hour I've done nothing but compliment your edits. I'd gladly have my IP checked if you want to go though the procedure as I've never used sockpuppetry. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note, you reversion of my edit to Governing Body Commission. It still has no reliable source!!!Ism schism (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I also would like to provide evidence of socket puppets that came before the one at hand. The origins can be seen on the user pages of the same person User talk: Wikidas and User talk: 79.97.0.103. I believe this is editor Gouranga is accusing me of being. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly a sockpuppet, two new users suddenly appear and start adding fact tags and unreferenced bio tags to a bunch of related articles, seems like POV attack Chopper Dave (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Im not a sockpuppet, but I wonder how you all manage to put aside the real issue. 'PLEASE' note that unreferenced bio is not acceptable! Please provide a reliable source for every statement!!!MBest-son (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note my update all your reversions to Governing Body Commission. It has now proper references as an example to follow. BestMBest-son (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * New evidence. Note the exact same word choice for MBest'son and Wikidas. Example #1,, this is in response to my posting User talk: Wikidas / User talk: 79.97.0.103, Example #2 (last remark by 79.97.0.103). These are the same remarks from the same editor. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * New evidence sounds like I cut and paste someone’s comments. I would recommend it to anyone - I would imagine that almost every second of your posts is vandalizing someone elses edits.SmakBoot (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please expand. I have never vandalized another's edits. Please provide proof of this accusation! Ism schism (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The Bhakti Vikasa Swami links do not work - please fix. I'd like to see more evidence before the conclusion is reached.  It's not enough to make a conclusion based on the last two links alone -- Shruti14 t c s 13:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, now I understand why the links don't work - the article no longer exists! However, I would like to see more evidence that they are sockpuppets, and not simply two editors with similar positions, before a conclusion is made. -- Shruti14 t c s 13:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Guilty Syama (talk) 10:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Bogus claim To date, there has been no evidence to support Guranga's claims. As such, they are libel! Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)