Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Karmaisking

Karmaisking ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Karmaisking

Karmaisking ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date March 18 2009, 01:59 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by JQ ( talk)


KiK engages in continuous sockpuppeteering; this is one of dozens of similarly named socks. No attempt at concealment - just creates new socks as soon as the old ones are banned.

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
  •  Confirmed the following editing from a Karmaisking IP that I hardblocked a few months ago:
  1. $atan$ellsCheapCredit ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. PonziWasNotSuperman ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  3. CheatersWinUntilTheGamesFallsApart ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  4. Hell,FirstLeftDownSocialistAlly ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  5. HairyBarbarianSellsDebtAndDrugs ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  6. JekyllClubBoreMrHyde ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  7. WatchinTheTideRollAway ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  8. FranksFannieSmellsLikeHerbs ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  9. TheMadnessStopsHere ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  10. $oul$old ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  11. InnocentUntilMassacred ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Underlying IP reblocked for a year. Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 04:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Mayalld ( talk) 07:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC) reply


Report date March 19 2009, 12:08 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by JQ ( talk) 12
08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yet another Karmaisking sock">-maybe can hard block the IP as well


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

 Completed already blocked Mayalld ( talk) 13:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Mayalld ( talk) 13:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC) reply



Report date March 21 2009, 00:02 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets




Evidence submitted by JQ ( talk) 00
02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting off-wiki harassment from Karmaisking. Now that his main target pages are semi-protected, he hints that he is setting up new socks with edits on other pages who will later . This new user who appeared on a page of peripheral interest to KiK making and self-reverting some edits looks like an obvious candidate. The IP above is one (of many) used by KiK for off-wiki harassment and should be hardblocked. JQ ( talk) 22:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)">"> reply

Apologies for previously misfiling this case under the name of the possible sockpuppet. I moved it to Karmaisking (again) which may or may not have helped. JQ ( talk) 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC) reply



Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: A (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by JQ ( talk) 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC) reply


 Clerk declined no evidence that Karmaisking is under Arbcom sanction presented, and reporter has failed to supply diffs which might support running CU for any other reason despite two requests. Mayalld ( talk) 07:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot ( talk) 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC) reply

 Clerk note: Please provide diffs (preferably comparative with the sockmaster's behavior) to demonstrate the things that you have discussed. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 03:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Here's the (non)-diff for Icymilktea [2]. DyingSisyphus got a permanent ban while this process was grinding through, so no need for further action. JQ ( talk) 11:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC) reply

 Clerk note: please could you provide diffs showing similar behaviour by the alleged master and the alleged socks. Providing a diff that shows that with 3 intervening edits missed out one of the alleged socks arrived back at a version that we started with is not helpful. The purpose of asking for diffs is to enable the reviewintg admin to easily review the relevant edits. Providing the diff that you have provided doesn't help the reviewing admin at all. Mayalld ( talk) 22:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC) reply
I was hoping someone would just do the check on the basis of these suspicious edits, which I suspected were simply to create an edit record to evade semi-protection. But if not, I guess I'll just have to wait and see. The other socks have all been banned while we were getting to this point, so it looks as if no further action is warranted at this point. Sorry for wasting time. JQ ( talk) 07:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC) reply
 Clerk note: no, I'm sorry but that won't do. Two clerks have now asked you to provide diffs demonstrating the problematic behaviour, and showing that it is similar to the alleged master. You have supplied one diff that doesn't actually show anything. Providing diffs takes a little bit of time and effort, but not providing diffs means that somebody else has to make additional effort to investigate the case. I have to ask the question "If you can't be bothered putting in the effort to actually present the case with adequate evidence, why on earth should somebody else make that effort?". I have declined CU, both because there is no evidence presented that Karmaisking is sanctioned by Arbcom, and because of a failure to provide any evidence that might warrant a CU. Mayalld ( talk) 07:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Conclusions

 Delisted whilst the already blocked accounts are very likely to be Karmaisking, Icymilktea is connected only by a somewhat POV pushing style on economics. There is no evidence of the generally abusive behaviour which might indicate that this is Karmaisking. Mayalld ( talk) 11:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Mayalld ( talk) 11:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Report date April 22 2010, 03:05 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Ravensfire

Edits match the topics and style noted in WP:LTA#User:Karmaisking and sockpuppets. IP is also from Australia, matching the norm. Ravensfire ( talk) 03:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: The IP has been blocked for three months by Fastily. Spitfire Tally-ho! 13:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date May 7 2010, 11:40 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Cerebellum

I am unfamiliar with the sockpuppet investigation process and unsure if this warrants a checkuser, but this user appears to fit the pattern at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse#User:Karmaisking and sockpuppets. One edit in 2008, then several in the past two days, all to the talk pages of economics articles. Name fits Karmaiskings established pattern, and the edit in 2008 edit in 2008 was tagteaming with another banned Karmaisking sock.

See also here, here, and here.
Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Also note similarities to already blocked accounts user:$atan's$pawn and user:$hady$hysterGeithner. Looks like KiK has a new naming format - could be worth looking for other accounts starting with $ that follow his more common naming styles. Also added CounterfeitersHateAustrians to the list. Fits his style, and for a new user, very familiar with socking and policies around them. Passes DUCK test to me. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Quacks to me. $$$MakeMore$$$ already blocked by MastCell. CounterfeitersHateAustrians blocked and tagged. Elockid ( Talk) 18:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


15 May 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by ImperfectlyInformed

Hi, I'm pretty new to this SPI business, but CounterfeitingIsn't"EconomicActivity" ( talk · contribs) seems pretty clearly a sockpuppet - he has the same type of name. See Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Karmaisking and note previous names like User:CounterfeitersHateAustrians. He began by editing Austrian Business Cycle Theory with similar edits (see diff). I would sort of like to see him allowed back into Wikipedia at some point after doing some penance in non-economic topics because he's so persistent, but I'm not sure how that would work. In the meantime, needs to be blocked. II | ( t - c) 20:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Quack. Blocked and tagged. Elockid ( Talk) 04:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


17 May 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by BigK HeX

User:QE2Infinity! is a new account that primarily dove right into the Austrian Business Cycle Theory page, and then instituted edits substantially similar to ones inserted by banned sockpuppets, User:$$$MakeMore$$$ and User:CounterfeitersHateAustrians. I suspect that he will come back repeatedly given that one of the edit comments to accompany the edits in question says, "After 7 hours of intense work, I'm not going to let you screw with this article."

The diff between edits of the already-banned account ( User:$$$MakeMore$$$), and the latest account's edit is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Austrian_business_cycle_theory&action=historysubmit&diff=362571501&oldid=360693031

There are a few new additions in the latest text which throw off the match-ups within the diff, but it only takes a minute or two to see that it's almost verbatim.



As for the User:TaxPaysParasites account

His second edit was to come in and cry foul at "censorship" due to a deletion of the talk page ramblings made by a another sockpuppet account. see diff

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Waiting initial review. Waiting... waiting... waiting... frustrating, isn't BigKeynesian Hex? - TaxPaysParasites ( talk) 12:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: CODE LETTER (Unknown code )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

 Clerk endorsed. If possible, endorsing for an IP block please. I doubt there are going to be any sleepers though since the latest accounts have been new. Elockid ( Talk) 17:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC) reply

information Administrator note TaxPaysParasites blocked and tagged per DUCK. Elockid ( Talk) 12:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Both  Confirmed. Also, BeVeryAfraid ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki). Blocked one IP, but I doubt it will stop him. J.delanoy gabs adds 03:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply

information Administrator note BeVeryAfraid blocked. All accounts tagged as confirmed socks. Elockid ( Talk) 03:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
27 May 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by BigK HeX

Can I just say, "Trust Me"??? There really needs to be an expedite process for this guy. He's happily taunting the staff with edit comments like this one, "something is wrong with this system if I can get around the rules so easily."

I think the only solution that the current Wikipedia system offers is to put a long-term full protection on at least 2 of his favorite pet articles, and maybe assign an admin or two to introduce new edits proposed by valid editors.

The two articles would be Austrian Business Cycle Theory and Criticism of fractional-reserve banking.

Failing this, I've put in a CheckUser request to root out sleeper accounts, for reason continuous and unrepentant "Evasion of community based bans or blocks." BigK HeX ( talk) 16:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Endorsed for Checkuser attention.    Requested by BigK HeX ( talk) 16:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply

 Clerk endorsed for a sleeper check, please. In the past it has been shown that checks can root up some very long term sleepers, so it's probably worth giving this a scan. Thank you very much Spitfire Tally-ho! 18:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply

 Confirmed, one more:
  1. DumbRichSmartPoor ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
jpgordon ::==( o ) 18:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
01 June 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Satori Son

All three are brand new accounts editing the articles favored by KiK. OilyChernobyl has exhibited nearly identical editing patterns and thus has already been blocked as clear case of WP:DUCK. Other two accounts believed to be created in order to meet ten-edit autoconfirm criteria for editing semi-protected articles. [3] GypsyBanksters account is employing common KiK method of "discrediting" other KiK socks' edits. A checkuser to confirm these three and check for other new socks would be appreciated. Thank you. — Satori Son 16:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by — Satori Son 16:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
  • All 3 of these look pretty clear-cut to me, and I've blocked them. It still may be worth going ahead with a checkuser to see if there is an underlying set of IPs that could be blocked without collateral damage, although I doubt this is the case. MastCell  Talk 17:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I just went ahead and  Confirmed. A couple more socks found; IP blocked. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 21:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
18 June 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Gogo Dodo

Both accounts blocked per WP:DUCK and self-identified through editing mistakes. Requesting CU to look for additional socks and to block underlying IP since that seems to be the normal pattern. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 08:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: B (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Gogo Dodo ( talk) 08:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply

 Clerk endorsed. In the previous investigations other socks that were not listed in the investigation were found. So endorsing for CU attention for a sleeper check or find any missed accounts. Elockid ( Talk) 11:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply

 Confirmed

to be all the same. Amalthea 16:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply

information Administrator note All blocked and tagged. TN X Man 16:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
01 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by User:BigK HeX

User:PtAuAg is largely a single purpose account that has been advocating for monetary topics. I'm not sure of the exact creation date of the account, but this person started editing [on June 23rd] pretty shortly after the last CheckUser cleaned out a bunch of Karmaisking's accounts on June 18th.

There are certain clues which have passed my DUCK test -- goldbug, long arguments, and interest in fractional reserves & monetary subjects. However, there is also a behavior that is not generally representative of Karmaisking, and could either be a clue to exonerate this editor or that KiK has taken up new approaches -- I can detail more in private communication, per WP:BEANS. Also, I think it's noteworthy, in this editor's defense, that there hasn't been any of the characteristic Karmaisking soapboxing yet, although that's not particularly unusual, as Karmaisking has been known to make a few "low key" edits to get him past some "new editor" threshold, when he's setting up an account that he doesn't plan to use immediately for personal attacks.

In any case, the current potential evidence is:

  1. What really got this guy past my Duck test is this reference to not-very-well-known conspiriologist, Michael Rowbotham. [4]
  2. exclusive interest in articles related to monetary topics
  3. Goldbug -- see this editor's name
  4. long arguments (notice that his arguments use the "1)" and "2)" bullet numbering, much like KiK, and that he tosses in the occasional capitalization, which is also coincidental to Karmaisking: [5]
  5. KiK has otherwise been quiet for an unusual period of time -- possibly a blessing, or a sign that he's setting things up with accounts like this User:PtAuAg

I'm somewhat torn on making this report, since I don't want a less-than-blatant editor blocked inadvertantly. But this editor is contributing "votes" to various discussions, so -- if he is Karmaisking -- I'm not sure if we should wait for more blatant behavior. There are plenty of coincidences, but I'd guess only a CheckUser can decide the matter for certain. BigK HeX ( talk) 16:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply

The named account (  Clerk note: FractionalReserveRobbery) is a pretty blatant KiK sock. And the link to the IP editor indicates that it has been at least partially (if not fully) under KiK's control since July 3rd.

If we need evidence, then there's the usual KiK personal attacks, and pleading to be allowed "reasonable edits". See edit summary here

Pages likely could use semi-protects for a few weeks. BigK HeX ( talk) 08:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Not sure if this is standard procedure, but I'm going to remove the "In progress" template as stale, being that it is 1 week old. BigK HeX ( talk) 18:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

  Looks like a duck to me The link is here from the looks of it. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 01:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC) reply

 Clerk note: I am not sure what the filer think after looking at this comment that I just noticed. – MuZemike 02:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I am still unsure about this editor. Karmaisking LOVES to game the system and protest innocence and feign ignorance to the charges of sockpuppetry. However, as I am unsure, I am more than willing to notify the editor of the situation, to mitigate the potential of alienating someone who might just be an innocent new editor. On the other hand (though I may well be wrong), I do sense a faint quacking here and think only a CheckUser could identify with certainty whether this is more of Karmaisking's attempts at disruption, or whether we just have an editor with coincidental interests and a penchant for lengthy rebuttals. BigK HeX ( talk) 05:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Relaying Amalthea's findings:

It is rather clear that the following are all the same:

Likely, but not certain that these accounts are related to those above:

Possible/unclear whether this user is related to the above accounts:

-- Deskana (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply

In the "likely" category, there's no doubt in my mind that User:FractionalReserveRobbery is a sockpuppet, so ... if that account shares the same flags as User:PtAuAg, then it would seem they both are illegitimate. That last "Camel" one doesn't seem to fit Karmaisking's pattern, but I think the rest should be preventatively blocked given the information available now. BigK HeX ( talk) 04:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC) reply
I concur. user:FractionalReserveRobbery is undoubtedly a KiK sock. If PtAuAg and FractionalReserveRobbery are related, then PtAuAg is also a KiK sock. LK ( talk) 06:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC) reply

information Administrator note The socks in the first group plus FractionalReserveRobbery have been indefinitely blocked and tagged. I am looking at the patterns/behavioral evidence on PtAuAg and YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels to see if there is a connection. – MuZemike 21:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Here are my observations:
Those three observations listed above, plus the likely CU evidence, makes me to conclude that PtAuAg and YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels are the same as Karmaisking. Blocked and tagged. – MuZemike 21:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC) reply
27 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Ravensfire

User:BarbaricSocialistZealots matches the usual profile for KiK socks - user name pattern, article choice and editing style. See this edit as an example. Also, BSZ signed a post written by 203.63.130.65, an admitted KiK sock.

The checkuser request is to see if any sleeper accounts can be detected.

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

Clear DUCK. Looks like the IP could be subject to a long-term block, too. BigK HeX ( talk) 16:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC) reply


Hi, Amalthea. Did nothing come up for that IP? It seems to be a long-term IP attached to this sockmaster. BigK HeX ( talk) 17:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Confirmed that

are PtAuAg. Amalthea 17:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC) reply

information Administrator note I've blocked and tagged the 4 accounts. They quack like Karmaisking and they are also related to PtAuAg which I also agree looks like Karmaisking. The IP has already been blocked. Elockid ( Talk) 18:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC) reply

30 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by BigK HeX

Editors decided to revert his edits. This new one reinstated one of those edits from an earlier sockpuppet.

See this diff: [6]]

and compare to the other sockpuppet's diff here: [7]


Also, I'd like to request that the edit history for the contribs of this sock be made inaccessible, if it's not too inconvenient. Thanks! BigK HeX ( talk) 14:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Sock blocked, but I see no reason to hide their edits. TN X Man 20:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I've added another account that popped up using the type username. TN X Man 23:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC) reply
01 August 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by BigK HeX

In his contribs, this sock is back onto one of KiK's favorite pages, and also he whines about me deleting KiK Talk Page Rants, as usual. He also reinstates those KiK talk page rants. BigK HeX ( talk) 11:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

I hope the Anon Ips who have been causing havoc at Libertarianism also are being investigated as being this or another sock, possibly of a registered editor working on the page. Users:97.93.109.174 & 71.12.74.67 & 68.59.4.188 & 74.223.28.94 CarolMooreDC ( talk) 13:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  • CheckUser has been successful in uncovering socks in previous cases, and considering the small amount of time between this request and the last, I think another check is needed here. PeterSymonds ( talk) 11:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC) reply

information Administrator note I've blocked Gaynomics ( talk · contribs). Same pages as Karmaisking. See also last report. Elockid ( Talk) 13:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC) reply

 Confirmed, nothing else of interest. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 23:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC) reply

 Clerk note: All accounts already blocked and tagged. Nothing much else to do. Elockid ( Talk) 00:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC) reply

04 August 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by BigK HeX

About IP 173.29.24.138 In his contribs, this IP is adding a YouTube video that I've only seen introduced by an older Karmaisking sockpuppet. The video was once added by a now-banned sock in this old edit: [8]. BigK HeX ( talk) 22:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply


About IP 114.78.249.196:

Comments by accused parties   
Comments by other users

"About IP: 173.29.24.138"


Hmmm, IP geolocates to the US, not Australia. Might just be someone that picked up on it, or via blog/forum post. Ravensfire ( talk) 01:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Yeah.. I guess so. BigK HeX ( talk) 10:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
06 August 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Yworo

Reverted Criticism of fractional-reserve banking to last available version by User:$atan's$pawn, a known sock of Karmaisking ( diff). Yworo ( talk) 13:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Blocked and tagged. – MuZemike 13:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Self-endorsing for CheckUser attention after the following account popped up:
– MuZemike 13:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC) reply
Since NoHopeInFiatMoneyWorld is a self-confessed KiK sock, is there really a need for checkuser? I think he enjoys any pandemonium he causes, and we should just tag socks, and quietly revert, block and ignore. LK ( talk) 05:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC) reply
Yes there is. The reason is not to confirm the above listed accounts. It's to find more. -- Shirik ( Questions or Comments?) 19:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I found:

-- Deskana (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC) reply

16 August 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by BigK HeX

Jessica'sGems: Brand new user (started editing a few days after the last Checkuser sweep on August 10th) went straight for an "Austrian school" page. A fair amount of quacking in the talk page policy debate. BigK HeX ( talk) 15:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC) reply

LibidoDominandi: First edit (I think) was on another user's talk page, glorifying Karmaisking. BigK HeX ( talk) 16:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Another rubbish comment by BKH. I've never glorified anyone except Rothbard. - Jessica'sGems ( talk) 13:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Checkuser requested because it seems fairly standard for this guy. BigK HeX ( talk) 15:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

In over 40,000 edits on WP I defy BKH - or anyone - showing one edit on a mainpage where I have spoken an untruth, or graffitied the mainpage. Please feel free to interfere with my privity of contract and block my right to internet access if you can show one abusive unreasonable edit on a mainpage. I cannot believe the abuse Yworo, Misessus, Darkstar, Teeninvestor, Weakopedia and I have had to suffer. BKH has been bizarre in the almost perverse pleasure he gets from deleting objective edits on a variety of pages. See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and especially here - all prime examples of the perverse, almost autoerotic pleasure he gets from censorship. LK has also been personally abusive and never been disciplined for this. He has also had numerous girly 'hissy fits' that shouldn't have been treated seriously except in the gutless-tolerant bubble-boy world of academia.

Despite the abuse I've tried to quietly keep editing, avoiding these idiots. But they wikistalk me and 'terminate' me despite the fact that my edits are always in good faith and improve every article - or at least they intend to. I'm happy to have my edits reviewed by editors without a clear WP:COI but that removes all govt funded underemployed parasites, useless short-sighted govt-funded academics and bankster-locusts - which takes out about 70 percent of the US population. I've never understood why you guys have to block sockppts. Bad edits will quickly be removed. Why remove editors completely? Why remove good faith edits from sockppts? Only for reasons of your bad faith, directly against WP's supposed own principles. There should be no sockppt investigations. It's the ultimate personal attack. There should only be rigorous analysis of individual edits. If my edits are rubbish they will be deleted anyway. Why try to track me down like an animal. The 'logic' of calling my relatively trivial, jocular edits serious personal abuse and yet allowing LK and BKH to delete multiple editors and hundreds of objective edits is the equivalent of putting a tin-pot African dictator on trial for war crimes and leaving out those who authorise the production and deployment of WMDs with depleted uranium, causing horrific genetic deformities for generations, or prosecuting leaders of the Japanese army for isloated attacks on civilians in the South Pacific whilst ignoring those who wiped out Hiroshima, Najasaki and Dresden. Oh... hold on... I think I see your perspective now. Obliterating all supporters of a particular school of thought is much more reasonable than merely annoying them. Like German experiments with debt-free money prior to WWII, WP's become too important to leave alone. It's attracted the interest of the govt and bankster censors. It was far better in the early years, when I started editing, when we could go about our business in peace. Perhaps parasites always breed late in the development of any venture. WP is already ossified. The only chance to produce in peace is NOT to be noticed by the monied parasites. Once they find you they kill you so their paper counterfeiting can continue. Sad. Anarchy will come. Just not consensually. - Jessica'sGems ( talk) 10:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC) reply

lol @ the retarded histrionics. No one gives a crap about interfering with your "Right to internet access," but you will stop TRESPASSING and STEALING. How can a self-professed Rothbardian not understand that you've been asked to stay away from this private property and yet you continue to intrude, making you a trespasser. You also continue to utilize the resources of this private company without authorization, making you a thief, as well. BigK HeX ( talk) 19:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC) reply
Since Jessica seems to be admitting to being Karmaisking, it occurs to me if your edits were truly helpful you would be so easily noticed and banned again. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 12:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments by other users

Added "V"forVolatility - see initial post, creating user page, then blanking. Next edit to Murray Rothbard.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Note: Abuse Response has completed an independent investigation and is prepared to contact the ISP at this time. ANowlin talk 21:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Best thing to happen to the treatment of economics in Wikipedia since I've been here. BigK HeX ( talk) 22:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC) reply

information Administrator note All above registered accounts indefinitely blocked and tagged. – MuZemike 13:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC) reply

 Confirmed. Also:
  1. TheNaturalLaw ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
jpgordon ::==( o ) 17:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC) reply
information Administrator note Marking for close. TN X Man 11:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC) reply

This abuse report has been successfully actioned. Actioned. Promethean at Abuse Response has made contact with the ISP in the editor's country via Telephone. The ISP has opened a ticket to investigate, and has also received a copy of our report. Action will likely be taken soon, as per their TOU, Wikipedia falls under the "Online Forum" category, and the TOU states that the user must not use their service to access a site from which they have been previously blocked/banned. ANowlin talk

21 August 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by BigK HeX

Diff with him leveling his typical personal attacks (against what the nutjob he seems to have convinced himself is my "illiterate edit" and for me being a "little commie zealot-w8anker") on my talk page. I'd ask for a block for a couple of weeks on his last few IPs please. Also, I don't know if information about this type of still-continuing abuse is helpful for the Abuse Response team's case, but if so, I hope that it can be directed to the correct representatives. Thanks! BigK HeX ( talk) 23:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

Does it matter to anybody that footnotes 23 and 55 in Austrian School are STILL incorrectly formatted? Evidence of lack of good faith can be inferred from a complete callousness when it comes to cleaning up edits on a page. BKH's 'technique' is to hit and run on a page he doesn't like, graffiting his own populist party socialist agenda all over AS, Libertarianism and other pages and leaving, accusing others - Darkstar1, Weakopedia, me - of abuse. He's a whack-job projecting all over the place, and when he doesn't get his way he bans other editors. Note he hasn't made one edit on Keynesian Resurgence, or central banking, or socialism, or Keynesian economics - his clear areas of interest. He keeps tendentiously attacking his 'enemy's' pages, making clearly POV edits, then waiting for the rage of genuine editors to rise so he can ban them. Childish. But admirable in a Chutzpah-ish kind of way. Whilst providing additional 'evidence' to Optus, you may also want to point out that I self-reverted the abusive edit - something BHK conveniently omits to mention. So why did he go BACK into history to dig it up?

And why isn't there an immediate unblocking of all falsely identified 'sockppts', given the evidence clearly submitted here? Again, does no one care that the system isn't working? Does no one care that editors are being wrongly banned? What the Hell is going on in WP admin land? Is yet another bureaucracy going zealot-mad?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.161.114 ( talk • contribs)

Comments by other users

Added a probable new sock - MalthusWasLateNotWrong

Added HangHypocrites — the first version of his user page (now deleted) contained a "confession". Favonian ( talk) 14:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note I doubt they'll edit again (at least, from this IP). In fact, they've already moved to another IP, which I've added above. I can offer to semi-protect your talk page for a bit to see if that calms things down, but I doubt blocking these IPs will do much. TN X Man 01:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I think I'll be OK. Thanks a ton for the quick response though. BigK HeX ( talk) 05:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC) reply
information Administrator note Since he seems to have gone back to creating accounts, I'm going to request a sleeper check. TN X Man 19:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC) reply

 Clerk endorsed for a sleeper check/check for any missed accounts. Elockid ( Talk) 01:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC) reply

114.73.128.0/18 blocked 1 week. – MuZemike 01:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC) reply

No sleepers that I could see. -- (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC) reply

information Administrator note Marking for close. TN X Man 19:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC) reply
28 August 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by BigK HeX

New users with relation to the typical personal attacks on my talk page. Other typical indicators. He claims to have a few more socks, so might as well run a CU. BigK HeX ( talk) 08:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Confirmed. Also, DeflationInflationDeflation... ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki).  IP blocked. J.delanoy gabs adds 00:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

 Clerk note: All accounts tagged and already blocked. Elockid ( Talk) 03:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

04 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Carolmooredc

User:114.73.173.184 has admitted being a sock here(probably of User:Karmaisking if you read the back and forth between editors in the section). User:125.7.71.6 has a Note diff of deleted long history of complaints against this IP. He has made an attack post related to ongoing previous discussion on a talk page starting here. User:125.7.71.6 or someone posing has him has now started User:ShadowMan4444 and signed the aforementioned post with that handle. Oh, rereading I realized: The IP who became Shadowman444 actually gave us his blog address - which he signs as KarmaIsKing! at this diff where it was deleted and throughout previously. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 04:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply


The user clearly passes the DUCK test as a sockpuppet of Karmaisking. Even if he were not a sockpuppet, the "advice" he has attempted to give another user describes a mentality that is so blatantly disruptive, it would merit an indef block, as a clear example of an editor refusing to work collaboratively. See: this diff from bottom of this thread. BigK HeX ( talk) 05:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments by accused parties   

There are serious, very grave WP:COI issues raised against Carol Moore. It is self-evident that someone who is the subject of these serious allegations not try to censor discussion about her own possible violations of WP policy. These actions by Carol - made by someone with an interest in censoring any investigation of her own funding of her activities - should be completely ignored and disregarded. I ask Carol to reveal her main sources of funding and state clearly that her income does not relate to political activities, either in support of or against libertarian ideas. If she fails to answer these questions and dismisses these concerns, this should be taken as guilt by denial, as any editor actively and persistently camp-editing a WP page should openly state their position in this regard. I personally confirm that I am not funded to push any political party or ideas and have no professional affiliations that relate in any way for or against Libertarianism. I am happy to sign a statutory declaration or allow full investigation of my sources of income - including emailing bank statements - to confirm these facts if Carol is equally willing to do the same. Carol should be forced to declare her sources of funding given her activities on WP.

You completely miss the point. Carol should NOT INITIATE A SOCKPPT INVESTIGATION IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES SO IT IS RELEVANT TO THIS PAGE. BKH or you or anyone else can initiate such an investigation, just not Carol given the WP:COI allegations made by the 'sockppt'. THAT is relevant to this page.
Someone else potentially violating a guideline doesn't excuse you potentially violating policy. Could you explain Carol's findings above? Are you intentionally editing while logged out for some reason? Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 05:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply
FYI, I have never taken any money from David Koch - even when I collected signatures for him 4 president in 1980. One has to deny taking money from every individual one ever edits? Geez. Just an absurd smokescreen. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 05:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply
Never humor Karmaisking's ignorant rants, if you can avoid it. BigK HeX ( talk) 06:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  • Just as a side note, it's not really a huge deal for someone to be editing under two IP addresses. That happens all the time, if someone edits from work, home, and/or school or other public location. It's not their fault how the interwebs are set up. If they're deliberately editing while logged out for deceptive purposes, that's another issue, however if an account was created in the midst of discussion for the purposes of them having an account, then that's also not really an issue. If that made sense. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 05:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply
Marking for close. TN X Man 13:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply
14 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Ravensfire

Aside from the usual stuff, see this diff - [9]. CU check is for sleepers. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the quick check! Ravensfire ( talk) 14:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

I endorse as a clear DUCK... BigK HeX ( talk) 14:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
It looks like there's just the one account. TN X Man 14:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC) reply

 Confirmed. No additional sleepers found. – MuZemike 14:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC) reply

19 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by BigK HeX

reinserted a reversion of talk page edits by another KiK sockpuppet BigK HeX ( talk) 14:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC) reply


Requesting a CheckUser, as this seems to be standard for this guy. There are suspicions that User:DebtDukkha may be a sock, as well. BigK HeX ( talk) 14:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  •  Unlikely. While all three geolocate to the same continent, they go not geolocate the same general area, use the same IP, or useragents. This one will have to be decided on behavioral evidence. Tiptoety talk 17:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • The behavioral evidence seems like a clincher to me. A new account comes out of nowhere to revert back to the edit that a now-blocked sockpuppet had made. I can't think of any reason why they'd do that unless it was yet another sock. -- Atama 頭 17:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC) reply
22 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Lawrencekhoo

It's a waste of time, but the sock demands it and is starting an edit war, so here we are.

DebtDukkha has all the hallmarks of a Karmaisking sockpuppet. He quacks to high heaven.

First, the username fits the KiK pattern: 'debt' and 'dukkha' (a buddhist term, like karma).

Second, he edits in the known areas of interests of KiK.

Third, he claims to be a new user, but he shows incredibly detailed knowledge of Wikipedia within his 'first week' of editing.
He:
i) shows knowledge of how to format citations and internal links; his first edit is to clean up a citation and format links [10]
ii) shows knowledge of 'merge' tags and when to remove them [11]
iii) uses insider terms like 'better internal wp ref' [12]
iv) knows how to find the sockpuppet investigation page.
v) knows of the 3RR rule.

Lastly, I am very familiar with KiK's 'voice' and style of writing, and can state unequivocally that this is him. LK ( talk) 06:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

I mentioned this account in the last report. If it matched with the other blocked account, I'm not sure why this one wasn't blocked as well.... BigK HeX ( talk) 08:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply


Note for Checkuser: Please compare technical indicators with those of known sockpuppet, User:RightLib. Thanks! BigK HeX ( talk) 08:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Dug up a few socks-

which are the same as DebtDukkha. TN X Man 16:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply

23 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Ravensfire

Reverting to version by previous socks, usual edit comments [13], [14]. It's KiK at his (relative) finest!

CU is for a sleeper check. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

No sleepers found. TN X Man 14:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC) reply

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged the account a couple of hours ago. Made a couple of protections. Elockid (Alternate) ( Talk) 17:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC) reply

24 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Yworo

SPI archives show multiple instances of KiK's use of this IP range. KiK has tried to involve himself in the dispute over article Libertarianism multiple times, including initiating discussion on talk pages of users involved in the dispute, such as Xerographica. The username BuySilverNow is typical of usernames chosen by this banned user, and changes the sig on the IPs comment. [15] As this user frequently has sleeper accounts, requesting checkuser. Yworo ( talk) 15:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Confirmed TN X Man 15:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Oh, good lord, yes. Thank you DQ, for catching that - I did not mean to imply anything about the IP. TN X Man 21:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC) reply

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. Elockid ( Talk) 22:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC) reply

30 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Cretog8

This edit is very typical of Karmaisking, jumping back into an existing discussion, and taunting in the edit summary. CRETOG8( t/ c) 12:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. Elockid ( Talk) 12:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC) reply

03 October 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Cretog8

Supposedly new user, offensive username with monetary references, very first edit [16] was reverting a bit of talk page stuff from a previous sock. User page and talk page are part of the troll. It's all very much shouting, "I'm Karmaisking!" CRETOG8( t/ c) 06:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
12 October 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Lawrencekhoo

Behaviorally similar to previous KiK socks. Same topics of interests, same types of arguments, same personal insults. Name follows the usual pattern, CDO = Collateralized debt obligations. Suggest checkuser to weed out other socks. LK ( talk) 09:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims. Wrong. Check location. I live in another place... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.58.30 ( talk • contribs) 12:00, October 12, 2010

= Responses from others =
"Another place" which is different from where exactly....? BigK HeX ( talk) 12:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC) reply
IP geolocates to general region of KiK - Australia. Different ISP than earlier confirmed IP's, but it locates to Brisbane which other IP's did as well. Doesn't fit everything, but sources and tone are similar. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments by other users

I, too, feel the listed user exhibits coincidental interests (Austrian School, and topics regarding criticism of the current financial system). And the comments and content of the edits are also suspicious.

Additionally, I'd ask that any recent anon-IP that may be found during a checkuser be listed, please (even if they might not necessarily end up blocked). I think some of the recent IP edits are also KiK socks. BigK HeX ( talk) 11:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  •  Confirmed the following:

information Administrator note CDODISASTER blocked and tagged. Their contribs alone quack enough to me. Elockid ( Talk) 20:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC) reply

15 October 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Ravensfire

Edits fit the usual KiK pattern - see recent edits to Austrian business cycle theory. User name is a reference to Ballarat, Victoria in Australia where major gold mines are located. One of Kik's favorite subjects is the return to the gold standard.

CU check is for any sleepers. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Possible that User:BallaratMines is a sock of User:Karmaisking. Geolocation is close but not conclusive. No sleepers found.  Frank  |   talk  22:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC) reply

19 October 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Ravensfire

Usual KiK stuff - see contributions and user page. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Confirmed. No sleepers. TN X Man 14:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply

28 October 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Ravensfire

Usual Kik pattern, CU is for sleeper check. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Just one sleeper:

11 November 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Ravensfire

Usual edits on usual topics, complete with caustic tone. CU check is for sleepers. Ravensfire ( talk) 15:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply


Auto-generated every six hours.

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

On top of the CU info, I'd add that the behavioral evidence is a pretty good match as well. Please be advised that the Long Term Abuse team's pressure caused significant changes in KiK's ability to post. BigK HeX ( talk) 22:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Forgive the bump/prod, but could someone make a call one-way or on this? From pure behavior, I'm convinced it's KiK and have continued to revert on that basis. If the user is not blocked as a KiK sock , then those of us that monitor Kik's articles will have an apparent clone to work with and need to know that. Thanks! Ravensfire ( talk) 15:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

You appear to have listed the same account twice. To whom is this account related? TN X Man 16:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Oh whoops - I'm sorry about that! It should be for Karmaisking. My apologies. Ravensfire ( talk) 17:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Red X Unrelated to Karmaisking, unfortunately. – MuZemike 17:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Hold on, I may have checked an account that was not a Karmaisking sock. I'm going to check again with a different previous sock. – MuZemike 17:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply
I was looking into this the same time MuZemike was. My finding is a  Likely match, given the edits and geographic area. I'd also like to hear what MuZemike says as well. TN X Man 17:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I would say it's  Possible due to the variance in the geographical area and user agents, but that is based only on technical evidence. – MuZemike 17:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I will note that the initial CU result was  Possible, but a later check came back as  Confirmed. – MuZemike 01:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC) reply

13 December 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

This diff contains his usual rants and blatant POV. A periodic checkuser sweep seems standard for this fella. BigK HeX ( talk) 13:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC) reply

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
 Confirmed TN X Man 20:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC) reply
16 April 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Same edit [17] as previous KiK socks, plus similar user page. CU check is for any other socks, KiK rarely travels alone. Ravensfire ( talk) 19:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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
One more, User:Silver-Metal'sSuperman, blocked. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 22:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply
06 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Usual flags for Kik - user name capitalization, rants against editors he doesn't like, editin economics articles. The Andrej Pejic article is for a model living in Australia, KiK's home country. Checkuser is for any possible sleepers - see [18] in particular. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply

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

And how.  Confirmed the following:

information Administrator note All blocked and tagged. Elockid ( Talk) 15:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply

06 July 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Socks have already been blocked by Elockid based on duck test. (See User_talk:Elockid#Some_new_KiK_socks.) SPI is for sleepers. LK ( talk) 08:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC) reply

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

No sleepers. TN X Man 13:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC) reply

 Clerk note: All already blocked and tagged. Elockid ( Talk) 20:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC) reply

30 March 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Name is typical for Kik socks, plus probably self-admittance here. CU is for any possible sleepers as Kik often would create multiple socks. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC) reply

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

 Confirmed, but no other accounts that I saw. TN X Man 14:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC) reply

12 August 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Mmahoney393 has similarity to Karmaisking and his socks: interest in and support of Austrian economics, edit-warring, aggressive writing style and located in Australia. The editor implies he is the same as the dynamic IP that began editing recently. Is it possible to block that range? TFD ( talk) 05:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I support this request. The behavior of this SPA (edit warring, personal insults, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior, and now a request for formal mediation [19]) is inconsistent with a supposedly 3-day old user, and totally consistent with the antics of Karmaisking. LK ( talk) 11:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC) reply
"Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT#Signs_of_disruptive_editing Mmahoney393 ( talk) 11:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC) reply


Comments by other users

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

This is all rock solid evidence guys, because god knows there could be only one vigorous defender of Austrian economics on the continent of Australia. (Because it's a heterodox position, being passionate about the topic comes with the territory of being Austrian, so your logic would ban every Austrian in Australia, which I'm sure sounds fine to you, but may be detrimental to the pursuit of knowledge) I definitely recommend blocking the entire University of Sydney from editing wikipedia based on your top notch deductions. Guess I would just go to the coffee shop next door. One question for the team of sleuths: if I am Karmaisking, why would I shift from an obvious pseudonym to an obvious real name derivative, especially if I'm planning to keep popping up with different accounts? Mmahoney393 ( talk) 11:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I am Karmaisking and can confirm Mmahoney393 has nothing to do with me. I don't know who this dude is. Just another example of the fanatical zealotry of the queer (in the sense of "odd") Keynesian zombies. "Kill Austrians first, ask questions later." If you need to kill off every Australian Austrian, so be it. They sound similar anyway, so let's kill off anything with the prefix "Aust" and perhaps they'll all go away and we can keep counterfeiting forever. At least that's the hope. - LK'sPatsy ( talk) 02:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC) reply
This would all be a lot more convincing except that:
  1. A dogmatic tendentious SPA shows up every once in a while to edit war the same POV at Austrian school
  2. The supposedly new user quickly descends to insults and vulgar personal attacks.
  3. And amazingly, they always seem to geo-locate to Australia
  4. KiK has made the same "that's not me" claim before, only to later admit it or have the account be proven a sock through check user.
-- LK ( talk) 08:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC) reply
I agree. This seems to be a sock puppet. -- MeUser42 ( talk) 10:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC) reply
This is insane. (1) I don't have access to Uni of Sydney computers. I'm not enrolled. Previous edits have NEVER come from anywhere near the UofS. (2) Mmahoney393 is not a name I'd ever use, nor have I EVER used a name like that previously. I note in passing as a humorous aside that at least 10 innocent users have already been listed as Sockppts and blocked when in fact they were not me. I laughed at your idiocy in the past and thought it was funny. I'm not laughing over this one. (3) Mmahoney393's writing style isn't even vaguely close to mine (4) I haven't edited for many months on ASchool (only a few joke edits on CofFRB) because I've found a site more to my liking (5) I've never had nor ever shown an obsession with Austrian predictions. Austrians generally abhor the idea that anyone can predict anything in economics and treat modelling as cheap charlatanism (6) The mere fact someone edits from the same COUNTRY (24 million people approx) is no ground for blocking. That's f*cking INSANE (7) LK is nothing but a Keynesian banker-sucking robot and blind to his own madness, but I've never called anyone an asshole, so again the writing style is inconsistent with the allegation. (8) Mmahoney393 never uses CAPS. I use them ALL THE TIME. (9) This Dalek-like "EXTERMINATE!" madness has got to stop. You guys are losing it. Thank God I've found a site that allows me to work in peace until the next European bank run - or food crisis - kicks in and destroys us all. - LK'sPatsy ( talk) 11:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC) reply

The writing style of Mmahoney393 seems similar to LK'sPatsy's despite his comment, "Mmahoney393's writing style isn't even vaguely close to mine". Long, abrasive, pro-Austrian, edit-warring and the same intellectual/educational level. The IP used by Mmahoney is a "suspected proxy server", which means "this IP address represents the public IP address of a router or firewall with more than one device behind it." [21] Both are Australian and it is more than coincidental that Karmaisking returned to defend Mmahoney393. TFD ( talk) 05:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Please note that there is a big difference between a legitimate campus proxy server and an open proxy available to the public. ​— DoRD ( talk)​ 13:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


14 August 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


User has several traits common to Kik socks. The user name is an attack on an editor that Kik clashes with and probably alone is enough for a username block. And of course, in this [22] post, the user self-identifies as Kik. CU check is for any sleepers. Ravensfire ( talk) 13:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC) reply

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
17 October 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

FRB123 has very similar editing history [23] to banned user Karmaisking and his socks, editing essentially only topics that Karmaisking and socks have previously shown interest in: Austrian economics, Fractional reserve banking , Full-reserve banking, Criticism of fractional reserve banking, Monetary reform, Embezzlement (see [24]).

FRB123 started intensely editing very quickly after joining (see history [25]), showing a familiarity with Wikipedia that is unusual for a new user. A previously suspected sock of Karmaisking, User:Mmahoney393, disappeared shortly before FRB123 appeared.

An anonymous IP (138.130.110.148) has also conveniently popped up to support FRB123 in reverting to his preferred version, and supporting FRB123's arguments on the talk page. (See Talk:Austrian_School#Heterodox_in_the_lead) The IP is located in Australia, the known location of Karmaisking. I also include for reference a recent self-admitted sock of Karmaisking, User:LK'sPatsy, and recent suspected IP's for Karmaisking.

-- LK ( talk) 07:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC) reply

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
  • Mmahoney393 is  Possible, but the results are not solid to draw any sort of conclusion on. I would only consider behavoiral evidence when deciding Mmahoney393. no No comment with respect to IP address(es). -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 07:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply
06 November 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

IP socks of banned user karmaisking the IPs are editing on Austrian School economics and various banking and money-related articles. '''SPECIFICO''' ( talk) 17:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Additional abusive edit:

The preceeding edit by the sockpuppet reverted my removal of the material added by another of its sockpuppets, FRB123, which is banned. Diff given here:

'''SPECIFICO''' ( talk) 00:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Nov. 7 activity including a large addition of material deemed fringe per prior talk, with hostile sarcastic edit summary.

Concession that this user has been banned, appears to confess to being sock of karmaisking

Comments by other users

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

The recent edits to Austrian School and Fractional reserve banking fit exactly into Karmaisking's behaviour profile. For example, this abusive edit summary is typical Karmaisking behavior: [27]

Although the anon IP's originate from two cities in South Eastern Australia, the similarity of language, the focus of their edits, proximity in time, and the fact that they reintroduce the same material, rules out the hypothesis that these are two different unrelated people. At best, these are two editors who are tandem editing, I would guess more likely is that both IPs are Karmaisking, and that he either i) uses two different ISPs that geolocate to two different cities, ii) has long distance access to a computer or an IP proxy in another city, or iii) frequently travels between both cities.

I've also added two recent accounts that are obvious Karmaisking socks. Given the high level of long term abuse, would a range block be appropriate? A checkuser for sleepers would also be nice. LK ( talk) 04:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply

In this edit, 203.209.200.93 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) responds to the removal of a comment left by 124.176.79.201 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), by deleting one of my comments and leaving the edit summary "Either his shit is deleted or my comment stays". This confirms that, even though they geolocate to different cities, both anon IPs, 203.209.200.93 and 124.176.79.201, are controlled by the same user, Karmaisking. LK ( talk) 04:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Confirmed the following are the same:
02 December 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


New editor, concentrating almost entirely on Fractional reserve banking, an area of importance to Karmaisking. [28] Posts long talk page entries explaining fractional reserve banking and why it is bad. (Compare Prettyladieslover's posting with this edit by FRB123, a recently blocked sock.) Also, Prettyladieslover added a link to an article on the Mises wiki. [29] That article was mostly written by and recently edited by an editor called Karmaisking. [30] TFD ( talk) 18:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC) reply

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
13 January 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Edit warring and repeated insertion of POV, unsourced, and non-RS sources at articles about Austrian School, Fractional Reserve Banking, Murray Rothbard, and other economic topics. Fits the behavior profile of other Karmaisking socks in these articles. Warned here: [31]


RE: Amanski,

'''SPECIFICO''' ( talk) 18:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

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
Tiptoety, is the user in Australia? KiK has access to service providers in different Australian cities. I wonder if you noticed my observervation in a previous CU, [32] where I note, "... This confirms that, even though they geolocate to different cities, both anon IPs, 1203.209.200.93 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 1124.176.79.201 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), are controlled by the same user, Karmaisking."
Thanks. -- LK ( talk) 02:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Per the privacy policy, I can not go into much detail surrounding the geolocate of users. That said, I am aware that Karmaisking geolocates to Australia and took that into consideration when posting the CU results above. Tiptoety talk 03:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC) reply
01 March 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

Contentious edits continuing recent edit war on Austrian School article. User first posted talk page comment as IP, then refactored to substitute user name signature. IP Geolocates to Australia, home of sockmaster karmaisking. Diffs: Australian ip-signed text refactor to username threat to resume edit war reverting consensus text SPECIFICO talk 14:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC) reply

New user WeOweItToOurselves [33] has just reverted properly sourced relevant text here [34] that was previously reverted here [35] by previously identified suspected Karmaisking sock IP user:101.161.151.75 [36] (which geolocates to Australia) I am adding the new IP and new user name to the sock and IP space above.

Comments by other users

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

I support this report. Based on the edit histories, these appear to be KiK socks. LK ( talk) 06:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • CheckUser requested - Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention - Obviously experienced users leap into a content dispute in their first edits, so endorsing to see if they are the same person. There are no ripe Karmaisking socks in the archive, but perhaps some old logs will be enlightening for comparison. Someguy1221 ( talk) 00:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  • From what we have in the archive and what I can see, I give it  Possible that both of these accounts have the same master. Based on editing patterns, time frames, location, and technical information combined, I call this  Likely. There just isn't enough raw data to confirm. I wouldn't advise blocking the IPs. Keegan ( talk) 03:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC) reply
09 November 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


This IP has recently begun editing and shows many similarities with Karmaisking: interest in individualist anarchism, [37] abrasive postings and edit summaries, and edit-warring. [38] Also the IP locates to Australia. The edit pattern shows a familiarity with Wikipedia, so they are unlikely a new editor. TFD ( talk) 06:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Basically -- I do not see any overlapping which is sufficient for this report. Having a handful of edits on Anarchism is not quite enough to label an IP who seems far more pre-occupied with popular culture from their contributions list than as being a "sock." As for "Australia" one prior sock was in Brisbane, and this IP is in Perth. I dunno a lot about geography of Australia, but Perth is not a suburb of Brisbane, last I checked. The other articles do not seem to match any of the prior socks either -- this is a case of Jonathan Harker, I fear. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 14:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I'm not familiar with this LTV, but I don't see much in the way of behavioral similarities. Drmies ( talk) 14:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Has it occurred to you that the "evidence" is remarkably lacking -- other than your assertion that Perth and Brisbane are nearby <g> (over 2000 miles apart)? The style does not fit Kik, the topics do not match Kik, and the location does not match any prior location for Kik. Now you add a blocked editor who did indeed concentrate on a banking article, but absent any other evidence, the SPI case is not going anywhere at all. The times also do not gibe -- the IP edited mainly from 2 to 5 am GMT on Saturday, AR made no edits after 1 am GMT on Saturday. Kik made few edits at all on Saturdays, with a very large percentage on Tuesday and Thursday , and very few in the Saturday morning hours. So -- no place overlap, no style overlap, no time overlap. Leading to a remarkable possibility - that the evidence is lacking for any investigation here. Now I grant that it is possible that a sock will not show interest in the same topics as the sockmaster -- but that is unusual. It is possible that a sock will set his alarm clock to set entirely different editing hours. It is possible that a sock will use completely different vocabulary, etc. But is it likely? Cheers. BTW, with so few edits involved for the IP, the likelihood that your evidence means anything is nil. AR, btw, is currently rightly blocked for edit war. Collect ( talk) 21:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I would agree with Collect on this. I don't think this IP is Kik. The geography isn't right. I couldn't find an IP that Kik used in the earlier SPI's that was from Perth. AR is more likely to have been Kik but I think an early SPI didn't find a strong enough connection. Ravensfire ( talk) 21:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Also, AR is, wait, NPA--a person who makes idiotic edits and goes about it in an idiotic way, unlike your master. Drmies ( talk) 23:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Does anyone find it unusual that a new account makes 50 edits in 5 days, which other than minor edits are on Anarchism, that they report another editor at ANI, accuse other editors of "dickish" behavior, edit-war and are themselves reported for edit-warring? Does anyone think that this is the type of editing that should be encouraged? TFD ( talk) 01:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I don't think anyone disagrees that this is a sock of someone, but I just don't think it's KiK. Ravensfire ( talk) 03:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply
12 edits on Anarchism and its talk page. 22 not related to the Anarchism page. Nor to any topic associated, AFAICT, with Kik. Could it be a sock of someone? Maybe -- but it would be a fishing expedition. Could it be a person who had edited as an IP with a slightly different IP address? Yep. Could it be a new user who had actually read the main policies? Yep. But while fishing is fun, SPI is not the place to do it. Collect ( talk) 13:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply
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
21 February 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

It's been a while, but KiK is back. New sock who's edited the same articles, pushing the Austrian viewpoint. The name is also right in line with KiK's style. CU for any possible sleepers KiK has created Ravensfire ( talk) 13:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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
  • no Declined - In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this.

Also, given that the data is stale I'm not sure CU would be much help anyway. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 09:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC) Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 09:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC) reply

01 October 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual camel-case username blasting conventional monetary policies and editing same articles with similar tone. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Karmaisking. Ravensfire ( talk) 15:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply

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

22 October 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual camelcase user name with usual bank bashing theme. Same as previous sock Ravensfire ( talk) 13:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC) reply

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

Cookie cutter. Blocked, tagged, closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC) reply

14 January 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Typical KiK user name (note that MMT refers to Modern Monetary Theory, editing on their favorite article. First edit [39] is similar to this edit by confirmed KiK sock. I strongly suspect the IP edits from January 14 are also KiK (see similarities to the same previous edit, especially moving the Caplan quote. Ravensfire ( talk) 16:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC) reply

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

22 August 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Username = WP:DUCK Everymorning (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

I didn't check but this is far more likely Incorrigible Troll ( talk · contribs · count). Closing anyway.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply

25 June 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual camel case name referencing fiat or fractional-reserve concepts, especially with a not-so-subtle dig as part of the name. Edits are to fractional reserve banking and Austrian School articles, plus some edits to Australian political articles (KiK's IP addresses are invariably from Australia).

CU is requested for possible sleepers as KiK used to create multiple accounts. Ravensfire ( talk) 12:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC) reply

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

This case is  Stale. CU declined.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 12:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC) reply

19 September 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

First edit [40] is a massive edit to KiK's favorite target, probably copying the article from the version he's created on the mises wiki. Also note the usual camel case name. Ravensfire ( talk) 13:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Added IP as this was also used by KiK on the 19th and has previously been used by them in the past. Ravensfire ( talk) 13:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC) reply

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

17 October 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

Editor is restoring edits [41] made by IP [42]that geo locations to common Kik location (and prior edits around Austrian business cycle theory are classic Kik. Name is the usual Kik camel case and references topics they promote, the edits are strong POV towards full reserve banking which is Kik's usual theme. CU for possible sleepers as this is the first sock I've seen in a bit. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

 Confirmed to previous socks. No other accounts seen, which is precisely what happened on the last check in September 2018. Blocked, tagged, closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC) reply

26 November 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

Edits to Austrian School [43], camelcase user name that's somewhat insulting. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

All  Blocked and tagged. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 14:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply


09 December 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual camelcase name about monetary reform / austrian school. Similar edits to [44] from recent Kik sock. Ravensfire ( talk) 04:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

14 December 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual name format and mentions of gold. Similar edits to Monetary reform. That article probably needs to be semi-protected. Ravensfire ( talk) 01:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

24 January 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual camel case name related to money, similar edits to similar articles Ravensfire ( talk) 01:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

12 February 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual camel-case name, reference to Harvey Weinstein is different from usual econ reference, but still not unusual. First edit was to Money Reform, common target, adding full reserve banking and Austrian econ promoters. Next was to create basic user page, also common pattern. Last edit was to promote conspiracy theory which Kik has done before with other theories. Ravensfire ( talk) 16:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

 Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

27 February 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual camel-case name, usual edits to Fractional-reserve banking pushing Austrian POV. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

15 March 2020

Suspected sockpuppets


New user immediately restores massive edit previously made by sock, then after being reverted does so again. This is identical to edits made by previously blocked socks Weinstein'sWeiner and YouCan'tPrintYourWayOutOfAPandemic. Extremely similar edit summaries as well. Neutrality talk 21:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Zero question this is Kik. Usual camel-case name, note that Kik is from Australia, so the reference is quite appropriate. Restoring large POV/Fringe edits to the Fractional reserve banking article, their favorite target. Ravensfire ( talk) 23:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

20 March 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual name, restored edit of last sock Ravensfire ( talk) 14:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

26 March 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual name format, edits to Monetary reform. Ravensfire ( talk) 13:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

30 March 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual name, usual article, may need to protect Monetary reform. Ravensfire ( talk) 18:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

14 April 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual camel case name with typical theme, editing Austrian business cycle theory article. Ravensfire ( talk) 23:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply

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

21 April 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual name, mentions typical article targets in their post on my talk page, which they can't edit because of protection put in place to stop them. Ravensfire ( talk) 13:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC) reply

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

06 September 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual camel case name, pushing usual version of the Fractional-reserve banking page copied from the Mises wiki where Kik is the most active editor on pages like this. Ravensfire ( talk) 22:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC) reply

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

26 October 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Same sprawling edit to Fractional-reserve banking as previous Karmaisking socks. Compare this user's edit to that of confirmed sockpuppet HereComesThe Cull. Also matches the pattern of Special:Contributions/Inflation'sLastLaugh (can't link diffs due to revdel) and their sockpuppet Special:Contributions/WokesterSupplyChainChaos (ditto), which aren't tagged as Karma socks but probably should be. CU needed despite the duckiness as Karma frequently runs multiple socks at the same time (see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Karmaisking). Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 13:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Karmaisking/Archive&oldid=1118383136"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Karmaisking

Karmaisking ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Karmaisking

Karmaisking ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date March 18 2009, 01:59 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by JQ ( talk)


KiK engages in continuous sockpuppeteering; this is one of dozens of similarly named socks. No attempt at concealment - just creates new socks as soon as the old ones are banned.

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
  •  Confirmed the following editing from a Karmaisking IP that I hardblocked a few months ago:
  1. $atan$ellsCheapCredit ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. PonziWasNotSuperman ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  3. CheatersWinUntilTheGamesFallsApart ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  4. Hell,FirstLeftDownSocialistAlly ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  5. HairyBarbarianSellsDebtAndDrugs ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  6. JekyllClubBoreMrHyde ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  7. WatchinTheTideRollAway ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  8. FranksFannieSmellsLikeHerbs ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  9. TheMadnessStopsHere ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  10. $oul$old ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  11. InnocentUntilMassacred ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Underlying IP reblocked for a year. Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 04:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Mayalld ( talk) 07:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC) reply


Report date March 19 2009, 12:08 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by JQ ( talk) 12
08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yet another Karmaisking sock">-maybe can hard block the IP as well


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

 Completed already blocked Mayalld ( talk) 13:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Mayalld ( talk) 13:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC) reply



Report date March 21 2009, 00:02 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets




Evidence submitted by JQ ( talk) 00
02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting off-wiki harassment from Karmaisking. Now that his main target pages are semi-protected, he hints that he is setting up new socks with edits on other pages who will later . This new user who appeared on a page of peripheral interest to KiK making and self-reverting some edits looks like an obvious candidate. The IP above is one (of many) used by KiK for off-wiki harassment and should be hardblocked. JQ ( talk) 22:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)">"> reply

Apologies for previously misfiling this case under the name of the possible sockpuppet. I moved it to Karmaisking (again) which may or may not have helped. JQ ( talk) 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC) reply



Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: A (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by JQ ( talk) 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC) reply


 Clerk declined no evidence that Karmaisking is under Arbcom sanction presented, and reporter has failed to supply diffs which might support running CU for any other reason despite two requests. Mayalld ( talk) 07:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot ( talk) 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC) reply

 Clerk note: Please provide diffs (preferably comparative with the sockmaster's behavior) to demonstrate the things that you have discussed. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 03:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Here's the (non)-diff for Icymilktea [2]. DyingSisyphus got a permanent ban while this process was grinding through, so no need for further action. JQ ( talk) 11:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC) reply

 Clerk note: please could you provide diffs showing similar behaviour by the alleged master and the alleged socks. Providing a diff that shows that with 3 intervening edits missed out one of the alleged socks arrived back at a version that we started with is not helpful. The purpose of asking for diffs is to enable the reviewintg admin to easily review the relevant edits. Providing the diff that you have provided doesn't help the reviewing admin at all. Mayalld ( talk) 22:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC) reply
I was hoping someone would just do the check on the basis of these suspicious edits, which I suspected were simply to create an edit record to evade semi-protection. But if not, I guess I'll just have to wait and see. The other socks have all been banned while we were getting to this point, so it looks as if no further action is warranted at this point. Sorry for wasting time. JQ ( talk) 07:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC) reply
 Clerk note: no, I'm sorry but that won't do. Two clerks have now asked you to provide diffs demonstrating the problematic behaviour, and showing that it is similar to the alleged master. You have supplied one diff that doesn't actually show anything. Providing diffs takes a little bit of time and effort, but not providing diffs means that somebody else has to make additional effort to investigate the case. I have to ask the question "If you can't be bothered putting in the effort to actually present the case with adequate evidence, why on earth should somebody else make that effort?". I have declined CU, both because there is no evidence presented that Karmaisking is sanctioned by Arbcom, and because of a failure to provide any evidence that might warrant a CU. Mayalld ( talk) 07:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Conclusions

 Delisted whilst the already blocked accounts are very likely to be Karmaisking, Icymilktea is connected only by a somewhat POV pushing style on economics. There is no evidence of the generally abusive behaviour which might indicate that this is Karmaisking. Mayalld ( talk) 11:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Mayalld ( talk) 11:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Report date April 22 2010, 03:05 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Ravensfire

Edits match the topics and style noted in WP:LTA#User:Karmaisking and sockpuppets. IP is also from Australia, matching the norm. Ravensfire ( talk) 03:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: The IP has been blocked for three months by Fastily. Spitfire Tally-ho! 13:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date May 7 2010, 11:40 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Cerebellum

I am unfamiliar with the sockpuppet investigation process and unsure if this warrants a checkuser, but this user appears to fit the pattern at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse#User:Karmaisking and sockpuppets. One edit in 2008, then several in the past two days, all to the talk pages of economics articles. Name fits Karmaiskings established pattern, and the edit in 2008 edit in 2008 was tagteaming with another banned Karmaisking sock.

See also here, here, and here.
Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Also note similarities to already blocked accounts user:$atan's$pawn and user:$hady$hysterGeithner. Looks like KiK has a new naming format - could be worth looking for other accounts starting with $ that follow his more common naming styles. Also added CounterfeitersHateAustrians to the list. Fits his style, and for a new user, very familiar with socking and policies around them. Passes DUCK test to me. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Quacks to me. $$$MakeMore$$$ already blocked by MastCell. CounterfeitersHateAustrians blocked and tagged. Elockid ( Talk) 18:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


15 May 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by ImperfectlyInformed

Hi, I'm pretty new to this SPI business, but CounterfeitingIsn't"EconomicActivity" ( talk · contribs) seems pretty clearly a sockpuppet - he has the same type of name. See Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Karmaisking and note previous names like User:CounterfeitersHateAustrians. He began by editing Austrian Business Cycle Theory with similar edits (see diff). I would sort of like to see him allowed back into Wikipedia at some point after doing some penance in non-economic topics because he's so persistent, but I'm not sure how that would work. In the meantime, needs to be blocked. II | ( t - c) 20:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Quack. Blocked and tagged. Elockid ( Talk) 04:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


17 May 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by BigK HeX

User:QE2Infinity! is a new account that primarily dove right into the Austrian Business Cycle Theory page, and then instituted edits substantially similar to ones inserted by banned sockpuppets, User:$$$MakeMore$$$ and User:CounterfeitersHateAustrians. I suspect that he will come back repeatedly given that one of the edit comments to accompany the edits in question says, "After 7 hours of intense work, I'm not going to let you screw with this article."

The diff between edits of the already-banned account ( User:$$$MakeMore$$$), and the latest account's edit is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Austrian_business_cycle_theory&action=historysubmit&diff=362571501&oldid=360693031

There are a few new additions in the latest text which throw off the match-ups within the diff, but it only takes a minute or two to see that it's almost verbatim.



As for the User:TaxPaysParasites account

His second edit was to come in and cry foul at "censorship" due to a deletion of the talk page ramblings made by a another sockpuppet account. see diff

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Waiting initial review. Waiting... waiting... waiting... frustrating, isn't BigKeynesian Hex? - TaxPaysParasites ( talk) 12:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: CODE LETTER (Unknown code )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

 Clerk endorsed. If possible, endorsing for an IP block please. I doubt there are going to be any sleepers though since the latest accounts have been new. Elockid ( Talk) 17:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC) reply

information Administrator note TaxPaysParasites blocked and tagged per DUCK. Elockid ( Talk) 12:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Both  Confirmed. Also, BeVeryAfraid ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki). Blocked one IP, but I doubt it will stop him. J.delanoy gabs adds 03:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply

information Administrator note BeVeryAfraid blocked. All accounts tagged as confirmed socks. Elockid ( Talk) 03:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
27 May 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by BigK HeX

Can I just say, "Trust Me"??? There really needs to be an expedite process for this guy. He's happily taunting the staff with edit comments like this one, "something is wrong with this system if I can get around the rules so easily."

I think the only solution that the current Wikipedia system offers is to put a long-term full protection on at least 2 of his favorite pet articles, and maybe assign an admin or two to introduce new edits proposed by valid editors.

The two articles would be Austrian Business Cycle Theory and Criticism of fractional-reserve banking.

Failing this, I've put in a CheckUser request to root out sleeper accounts, for reason continuous and unrepentant "Evasion of community based bans or blocks." BigK HeX ( talk) 16:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Endorsed for Checkuser attention.    Requested by BigK HeX ( talk) 16:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply

 Clerk endorsed for a sleeper check, please. In the past it has been shown that checks can root up some very long term sleepers, so it's probably worth giving this a scan. Thank you very much Spitfire Tally-ho! 18:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply

 Confirmed, one more:
  1. DumbRichSmartPoor ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
jpgordon ::==( o ) 18:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
01 June 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Satori Son

All three are brand new accounts editing the articles favored by KiK. OilyChernobyl has exhibited nearly identical editing patterns and thus has already been blocked as clear case of WP:DUCK. Other two accounts believed to be created in order to meet ten-edit autoconfirm criteria for editing semi-protected articles. [3] GypsyBanksters account is employing common KiK method of "discrediting" other KiK socks' edits. A checkuser to confirm these three and check for other new socks would be appreciated. Thank you. — Satori Son 16:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by — Satori Son 16:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
  • All 3 of these look pretty clear-cut to me, and I've blocked them. It still may be worth going ahead with a checkuser to see if there is an underlying set of IPs that could be blocked without collateral damage, although I doubt this is the case. MastCell  Talk 17:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I just went ahead and  Confirmed. A couple more socks found; IP blocked. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 21:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
18 June 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Gogo Dodo

Both accounts blocked per WP:DUCK and self-identified through editing mistakes. Requesting CU to look for additional socks and to block underlying IP since that seems to be the normal pattern. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 08:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: B (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Gogo Dodo ( talk) 08:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply

 Clerk endorsed. In the previous investigations other socks that were not listed in the investigation were found. So endorsing for CU attention for a sleeper check or find any missed accounts. Elockid ( Talk) 11:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply

 Confirmed

to be all the same. Amalthea 16:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply

information Administrator note All blocked and tagged. TN X Man 16:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
01 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by User:BigK HeX

User:PtAuAg is largely a single purpose account that has been advocating for monetary topics. I'm not sure of the exact creation date of the account, but this person started editing [on June 23rd] pretty shortly after the last CheckUser cleaned out a bunch of Karmaisking's accounts on June 18th.

There are certain clues which have passed my DUCK test -- goldbug, long arguments, and interest in fractional reserves & monetary subjects. However, there is also a behavior that is not generally representative of Karmaisking, and could either be a clue to exonerate this editor or that KiK has taken up new approaches -- I can detail more in private communication, per WP:BEANS. Also, I think it's noteworthy, in this editor's defense, that there hasn't been any of the characteristic Karmaisking soapboxing yet, although that's not particularly unusual, as Karmaisking has been known to make a few "low key" edits to get him past some "new editor" threshold, when he's setting up an account that he doesn't plan to use immediately for personal attacks.

In any case, the current potential evidence is:

  1. What really got this guy past my Duck test is this reference to not-very-well-known conspiriologist, Michael Rowbotham. [4]
  2. exclusive interest in articles related to monetary topics
  3. Goldbug -- see this editor's name
  4. long arguments (notice that his arguments use the "1)" and "2)" bullet numbering, much like KiK, and that he tosses in the occasional capitalization, which is also coincidental to Karmaisking: [5]
  5. KiK has otherwise been quiet for an unusual period of time -- possibly a blessing, or a sign that he's setting things up with accounts like this User:PtAuAg

I'm somewhat torn on making this report, since I don't want a less-than-blatant editor blocked inadvertantly. But this editor is contributing "votes" to various discussions, so -- if he is Karmaisking -- I'm not sure if we should wait for more blatant behavior. There are plenty of coincidences, but I'd guess only a CheckUser can decide the matter for certain. BigK HeX ( talk) 16:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply

The named account (  Clerk note: FractionalReserveRobbery) is a pretty blatant KiK sock. And the link to the IP editor indicates that it has been at least partially (if not fully) under KiK's control since July 3rd.

If we need evidence, then there's the usual KiK personal attacks, and pleading to be allowed "reasonable edits". See edit summary here

Pages likely could use semi-protects for a few weeks. BigK HeX ( talk) 08:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Not sure if this is standard procedure, but I'm going to remove the "In progress" template as stale, being that it is 1 week old. BigK HeX ( talk) 18:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

  Looks like a duck to me The link is here from the looks of it. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 01:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC) reply

 Clerk note: I am not sure what the filer think after looking at this comment that I just noticed. – MuZemike 02:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I am still unsure about this editor. Karmaisking LOVES to game the system and protest innocence and feign ignorance to the charges of sockpuppetry. However, as I am unsure, I am more than willing to notify the editor of the situation, to mitigate the potential of alienating someone who might just be an innocent new editor. On the other hand (though I may well be wrong), I do sense a faint quacking here and think only a CheckUser could identify with certainty whether this is more of Karmaisking's attempts at disruption, or whether we just have an editor with coincidental interests and a penchant for lengthy rebuttals. BigK HeX ( talk) 05:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Relaying Amalthea's findings:

It is rather clear that the following are all the same:

Likely, but not certain that these accounts are related to those above:

Possible/unclear whether this user is related to the above accounts:

-- Deskana (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply

In the "likely" category, there's no doubt in my mind that User:FractionalReserveRobbery is a sockpuppet, so ... if that account shares the same flags as User:PtAuAg, then it would seem they both are illegitimate. That last "Camel" one doesn't seem to fit Karmaisking's pattern, but I think the rest should be preventatively blocked given the information available now. BigK HeX ( talk) 04:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC) reply
I concur. user:FractionalReserveRobbery is undoubtedly a KiK sock. If PtAuAg and FractionalReserveRobbery are related, then PtAuAg is also a KiK sock. LK ( talk) 06:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC) reply

information Administrator note The socks in the first group plus FractionalReserveRobbery have been indefinitely blocked and tagged. I am looking at the patterns/behavioral evidence on PtAuAg and YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels to see if there is a connection. – MuZemike 21:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Here are my observations:
Those three observations listed above, plus the likely CU evidence, makes me to conclude that PtAuAg and YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels are the same as Karmaisking. Blocked and tagged. – MuZemike 21:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC) reply
27 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Ravensfire

User:BarbaricSocialistZealots matches the usual profile for KiK socks - user name pattern, article choice and editing style. See this edit as an example. Also, BSZ signed a post written by 203.63.130.65, an admitted KiK sock.

The checkuser request is to see if any sleeper accounts can be detected.

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

Clear DUCK. Looks like the IP could be subject to a long-term block, too. BigK HeX ( talk) 16:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC) reply


Hi, Amalthea. Did nothing come up for that IP? It seems to be a long-term IP attached to this sockmaster. BigK HeX ( talk) 17:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Confirmed that

are PtAuAg. Amalthea 17:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC) reply

information Administrator note I've blocked and tagged the 4 accounts. They quack like Karmaisking and they are also related to PtAuAg which I also agree looks like Karmaisking. The IP has already been blocked. Elockid ( Talk) 18:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC) reply

30 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by BigK HeX

Editors decided to revert his edits. This new one reinstated one of those edits from an earlier sockpuppet.

See this diff: [6]]

and compare to the other sockpuppet's diff here: [7]


Also, I'd like to request that the edit history for the contribs of this sock be made inaccessible, if it's not too inconvenient. Thanks! BigK HeX ( talk) 14:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Sock blocked, but I see no reason to hide their edits. TN X Man 20:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I've added another account that popped up using the type username. TN X Man 23:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC) reply
01 August 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by BigK HeX

In his contribs, this sock is back onto one of KiK's favorite pages, and also he whines about me deleting KiK Talk Page Rants, as usual. He also reinstates those KiK talk page rants. BigK HeX ( talk) 11:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

I hope the Anon Ips who have been causing havoc at Libertarianism also are being investigated as being this or another sock, possibly of a registered editor working on the page. Users:97.93.109.174 & 71.12.74.67 & 68.59.4.188 & 74.223.28.94 CarolMooreDC ( talk) 13:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  • CheckUser has been successful in uncovering socks in previous cases, and considering the small amount of time between this request and the last, I think another check is needed here. PeterSymonds ( talk) 11:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC) reply

information Administrator note I've blocked Gaynomics ( talk · contribs). Same pages as Karmaisking. See also last report. Elockid ( Talk) 13:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC) reply

 Confirmed, nothing else of interest. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 23:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC) reply

 Clerk note: All accounts already blocked and tagged. Nothing much else to do. Elockid ( Talk) 00:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC) reply

04 August 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by BigK HeX

About IP 173.29.24.138 In his contribs, this IP is adding a YouTube video that I've only seen introduced by an older Karmaisking sockpuppet. The video was once added by a now-banned sock in this old edit: [8]. BigK HeX ( talk) 22:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply


About IP 114.78.249.196:

Comments by accused parties   
Comments by other users

"About IP: 173.29.24.138"


Hmmm, IP geolocates to the US, not Australia. Might just be someone that picked up on it, or via blog/forum post. Ravensfire ( talk) 01:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Yeah.. I guess so. BigK HeX ( talk) 10:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
06 August 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Yworo

Reverted Criticism of fractional-reserve banking to last available version by User:$atan's$pawn, a known sock of Karmaisking ( diff). Yworo ( talk) 13:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Blocked and tagged. – MuZemike 13:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Self-endorsing for CheckUser attention after the following account popped up:
– MuZemike 13:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC) reply
Since NoHopeInFiatMoneyWorld is a self-confessed KiK sock, is there really a need for checkuser? I think he enjoys any pandemonium he causes, and we should just tag socks, and quietly revert, block and ignore. LK ( talk) 05:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC) reply
Yes there is. The reason is not to confirm the above listed accounts. It's to find more. -- Shirik ( Questions or Comments?) 19:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I found:

-- Deskana (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC) reply

16 August 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by BigK HeX

Jessica'sGems: Brand new user (started editing a few days after the last Checkuser sweep on August 10th) went straight for an "Austrian school" page. A fair amount of quacking in the talk page policy debate. BigK HeX ( talk) 15:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC) reply

LibidoDominandi: First edit (I think) was on another user's talk page, glorifying Karmaisking. BigK HeX ( talk) 16:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Another rubbish comment by BKH. I've never glorified anyone except Rothbard. - Jessica'sGems ( talk) 13:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Checkuser requested because it seems fairly standard for this guy. BigK HeX ( talk) 15:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

In over 40,000 edits on WP I defy BKH - or anyone - showing one edit on a mainpage where I have spoken an untruth, or graffitied the mainpage. Please feel free to interfere with my privity of contract and block my right to internet access if you can show one abusive unreasonable edit on a mainpage. I cannot believe the abuse Yworo, Misessus, Darkstar, Teeninvestor, Weakopedia and I have had to suffer. BKH has been bizarre in the almost perverse pleasure he gets from deleting objective edits on a variety of pages. See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and especially here - all prime examples of the perverse, almost autoerotic pleasure he gets from censorship. LK has also been personally abusive and never been disciplined for this. He has also had numerous girly 'hissy fits' that shouldn't have been treated seriously except in the gutless-tolerant bubble-boy world of academia.

Despite the abuse I've tried to quietly keep editing, avoiding these idiots. But they wikistalk me and 'terminate' me despite the fact that my edits are always in good faith and improve every article - or at least they intend to. I'm happy to have my edits reviewed by editors without a clear WP:COI but that removes all govt funded underemployed parasites, useless short-sighted govt-funded academics and bankster-locusts - which takes out about 70 percent of the US population. I've never understood why you guys have to block sockppts. Bad edits will quickly be removed. Why remove editors completely? Why remove good faith edits from sockppts? Only for reasons of your bad faith, directly against WP's supposed own principles. There should be no sockppt investigations. It's the ultimate personal attack. There should only be rigorous analysis of individual edits. If my edits are rubbish they will be deleted anyway. Why try to track me down like an animal. The 'logic' of calling my relatively trivial, jocular edits serious personal abuse and yet allowing LK and BKH to delete multiple editors and hundreds of objective edits is the equivalent of putting a tin-pot African dictator on trial for war crimes and leaving out those who authorise the production and deployment of WMDs with depleted uranium, causing horrific genetic deformities for generations, or prosecuting leaders of the Japanese army for isloated attacks on civilians in the South Pacific whilst ignoring those who wiped out Hiroshima, Najasaki and Dresden. Oh... hold on... I think I see your perspective now. Obliterating all supporters of a particular school of thought is much more reasonable than merely annoying them. Like German experiments with debt-free money prior to WWII, WP's become too important to leave alone. It's attracted the interest of the govt and bankster censors. It was far better in the early years, when I started editing, when we could go about our business in peace. Perhaps parasites always breed late in the development of any venture. WP is already ossified. The only chance to produce in peace is NOT to be noticed by the monied parasites. Once they find you they kill you so their paper counterfeiting can continue. Sad. Anarchy will come. Just not consensually. - Jessica'sGems ( talk) 10:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC) reply

lol @ the retarded histrionics. No one gives a crap about interfering with your "Right to internet access," but you will stop TRESPASSING and STEALING. How can a self-professed Rothbardian not understand that you've been asked to stay away from this private property and yet you continue to intrude, making you a trespasser. You also continue to utilize the resources of this private company without authorization, making you a thief, as well. BigK HeX ( talk) 19:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC) reply
Since Jessica seems to be admitting to being Karmaisking, it occurs to me if your edits were truly helpful you would be so easily noticed and banned again. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 12:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments by other users

Added "V"forVolatility - see initial post, creating user page, then blanking. Next edit to Murray Rothbard.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Note: Abuse Response has completed an independent investigation and is prepared to contact the ISP at this time. ANowlin talk 21:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Best thing to happen to the treatment of economics in Wikipedia since I've been here. BigK HeX ( talk) 22:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC) reply

information Administrator note All above registered accounts indefinitely blocked and tagged. – MuZemike 13:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC) reply

 Confirmed. Also:
  1. TheNaturalLaw ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
jpgordon ::==( o ) 17:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC) reply
information Administrator note Marking for close. TN X Man 11:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC) reply

This abuse report has been successfully actioned. Actioned. Promethean at Abuse Response has made contact with the ISP in the editor's country via Telephone. The ISP has opened a ticket to investigate, and has also received a copy of our report. Action will likely be taken soon, as per their TOU, Wikipedia falls under the "Online Forum" category, and the TOU states that the user must not use their service to access a site from which they have been previously blocked/banned. ANowlin talk

21 August 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by BigK HeX

Diff with him leveling his typical personal attacks (against what the nutjob he seems to have convinced himself is my "illiterate edit" and for me being a "little commie zealot-w8anker") on my talk page. I'd ask for a block for a couple of weeks on his last few IPs please. Also, I don't know if information about this type of still-continuing abuse is helpful for the Abuse Response team's case, but if so, I hope that it can be directed to the correct representatives. Thanks! BigK HeX ( talk) 23:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

Does it matter to anybody that footnotes 23 and 55 in Austrian School are STILL incorrectly formatted? Evidence of lack of good faith can be inferred from a complete callousness when it comes to cleaning up edits on a page. BKH's 'technique' is to hit and run on a page he doesn't like, graffiting his own populist party socialist agenda all over AS, Libertarianism and other pages and leaving, accusing others - Darkstar1, Weakopedia, me - of abuse. He's a whack-job projecting all over the place, and when he doesn't get his way he bans other editors. Note he hasn't made one edit on Keynesian Resurgence, or central banking, or socialism, or Keynesian economics - his clear areas of interest. He keeps tendentiously attacking his 'enemy's' pages, making clearly POV edits, then waiting for the rage of genuine editors to rise so he can ban them. Childish. But admirable in a Chutzpah-ish kind of way. Whilst providing additional 'evidence' to Optus, you may also want to point out that I self-reverted the abusive edit - something BHK conveniently omits to mention. So why did he go BACK into history to dig it up?

And why isn't there an immediate unblocking of all falsely identified 'sockppts', given the evidence clearly submitted here? Again, does no one care that the system isn't working? Does no one care that editors are being wrongly banned? What the Hell is going on in WP admin land? Is yet another bureaucracy going zealot-mad?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.161.114 ( talk • contribs)

Comments by other users

Added a probable new sock - MalthusWasLateNotWrong

Added HangHypocrites — the first version of his user page (now deleted) contained a "confession". Favonian ( talk) 14:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note I doubt they'll edit again (at least, from this IP). In fact, they've already moved to another IP, which I've added above. I can offer to semi-protect your talk page for a bit to see if that calms things down, but I doubt blocking these IPs will do much. TN X Man 01:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I think I'll be OK. Thanks a ton for the quick response though. BigK HeX ( talk) 05:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC) reply
information Administrator note Since he seems to have gone back to creating accounts, I'm going to request a sleeper check. TN X Man 19:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC) reply

 Clerk endorsed for a sleeper check/check for any missed accounts. Elockid ( Talk) 01:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC) reply

114.73.128.0/18 blocked 1 week. – MuZemike 01:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC) reply

No sleepers that I could see. -- (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC) reply

information Administrator note Marking for close. TN X Man 19:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC) reply
28 August 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by BigK HeX

New users with relation to the typical personal attacks on my talk page. Other typical indicators. He claims to have a few more socks, so might as well run a CU. BigK HeX ( talk) 08:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Confirmed. Also, DeflationInflationDeflation... ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki).  IP blocked. J.delanoy gabs adds 00:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

 Clerk note: All accounts tagged and already blocked. Elockid ( Talk) 03:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

04 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Carolmooredc

User:114.73.173.184 has admitted being a sock here(probably of User:Karmaisking if you read the back and forth between editors in the section). User:125.7.71.6 has a Note diff of deleted long history of complaints against this IP. He has made an attack post related to ongoing previous discussion on a talk page starting here. User:125.7.71.6 or someone posing has him has now started User:ShadowMan4444 and signed the aforementioned post with that handle. Oh, rereading I realized: The IP who became Shadowman444 actually gave us his blog address - which he signs as KarmaIsKing! at this diff where it was deleted and throughout previously. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 04:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply


The user clearly passes the DUCK test as a sockpuppet of Karmaisking. Even if he were not a sockpuppet, the "advice" he has attempted to give another user describes a mentality that is so blatantly disruptive, it would merit an indef block, as a clear example of an editor refusing to work collaboratively. See: this diff from bottom of this thread. BigK HeX ( talk) 05:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments by accused parties   

There are serious, very grave WP:COI issues raised against Carol Moore. It is self-evident that someone who is the subject of these serious allegations not try to censor discussion about her own possible violations of WP policy. These actions by Carol - made by someone with an interest in censoring any investigation of her own funding of her activities - should be completely ignored and disregarded. I ask Carol to reveal her main sources of funding and state clearly that her income does not relate to political activities, either in support of or against libertarian ideas. If she fails to answer these questions and dismisses these concerns, this should be taken as guilt by denial, as any editor actively and persistently camp-editing a WP page should openly state their position in this regard. I personally confirm that I am not funded to push any political party or ideas and have no professional affiliations that relate in any way for or against Libertarianism. I am happy to sign a statutory declaration or allow full investigation of my sources of income - including emailing bank statements - to confirm these facts if Carol is equally willing to do the same. Carol should be forced to declare her sources of funding given her activities on WP.

You completely miss the point. Carol should NOT INITIATE A SOCKPPT INVESTIGATION IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES SO IT IS RELEVANT TO THIS PAGE. BKH or you or anyone else can initiate such an investigation, just not Carol given the WP:COI allegations made by the 'sockppt'. THAT is relevant to this page.
Someone else potentially violating a guideline doesn't excuse you potentially violating policy. Could you explain Carol's findings above? Are you intentionally editing while logged out for some reason? Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 05:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply
FYI, I have never taken any money from David Koch - even when I collected signatures for him 4 president in 1980. One has to deny taking money from every individual one ever edits? Geez. Just an absurd smokescreen. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 05:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply
Never humor Karmaisking's ignorant rants, if you can avoid it. BigK HeX ( talk) 06:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  • Just as a side note, it's not really a huge deal for someone to be editing under two IP addresses. That happens all the time, if someone edits from work, home, and/or school or other public location. It's not their fault how the interwebs are set up. If they're deliberately editing while logged out for deceptive purposes, that's another issue, however if an account was created in the midst of discussion for the purposes of them having an account, then that's also not really an issue. If that made sense. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 05:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply
Marking for close. TN X Man 13:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply
14 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Ravensfire

Aside from the usual stuff, see this diff - [9]. CU check is for sleepers. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the quick check! Ravensfire ( talk) 14:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

I endorse as a clear DUCK... BigK HeX ( talk) 14:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
It looks like there's just the one account. TN X Man 14:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC) reply

 Confirmed. No additional sleepers found. – MuZemike 14:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC) reply

19 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by BigK HeX

reinserted a reversion of talk page edits by another KiK sockpuppet BigK HeX ( talk) 14:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC) reply


Requesting a CheckUser, as this seems to be standard for this guy. There are suspicions that User:DebtDukkha may be a sock, as well. BigK HeX ( talk) 14:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  •  Unlikely. While all three geolocate to the same continent, they go not geolocate the same general area, use the same IP, or useragents. This one will have to be decided on behavioral evidence. Tiptoety talk 17:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • The behavioral evidence seems like a clincher to me. A new account comes out of nowhere to revert back to the edit that a now-blocked sockpuppet had made. I can't think of any reason why they'd do that unless it was yet another sock. -- Atama 頭 17:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC) reply
22 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Lawrencekhoo

It's a waste of time, but the sock demands it and is starting an edit war, so here we are.

DebtDukkha has all the hallmarks of a Karmaisking sockpuppet. He quacks to high heaven.

First, the username fits the KiK pattern: 'debt' and 'dukkha' (a buddhist term, like karma).

Second, he edits in the known areas of interests of KiK.

Third, he claims to be a new user, but he shows incredibly detailed knowledge of Wikipedia within his 'first week' of editing.
He:
i) shows knowledge of how to format citations and internal links; his first edit is to clean up a citation and format links [10]
ii) shows knowledge of 'merge' tags and when to remove them [11]
iii) uses insider terms like 'better internal wp ref' [12]
iv) knows how to find the sockpuppet investigation page.
v) knows of the 3RR rule.

Lastly, I am very familiar with KiK's 'voice' and style of writing, and can state unequivocally that this is him. LK ( talk) 06:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

I mentioned this account in the last report. If it matched with the other blocked account, I'm not sure why this one wasn't blocked as well.... BigK HeX ( talk) 08:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply


Note for Checkuser: Please compare technical indicators with those of known sockpuppet, User:RightLib. Thanks! BigK HeX ( talk) 08:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Dug up a few socks-

which are the same as DebtDukkha. TN X Man 16:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply

23 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Ravensfire

Reverting to version by previous socks, usual edit comments [13], [14]. It's KiK at his (relative) finest!

CU is for a sleeper check. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

No sleepers found. TN X Man 14:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC) reply

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged the account a couple of hours ago. Made a couple of protections. Elockid (Alternate) ( Talk) 17:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC) reply

24 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Yworo

SPI archives show multiple instances of KiK's use of this IP range. KiK has tried to involve himself in the dispute over article Libertarianism multiple times, including initiating discussion on talk pages of users involved in the dispute, such as Xerographica. The username BuySilverNow is typical of usernames chosen by this banned user, and changes the sig on the IPs comment. [15] As this user frequently has sleeper accounts, requesting checkuser. Yworo ( talk) 15:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Confirmed TN X Man 15:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Oh, good lord, yes. Thank you DQ, for catching that - I did not mean to imply anything about the IP. TN X Man 21:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC) reply

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. Elockid ( Talk) 22:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC) reply

30 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Cretog8

This edit is very typical of Karmaisking, jumping back into an existing discussion, and taunting in the edit summary. CRETOG8( t/ c) 12:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. Elockid ( Talk) 12:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC) reply

03 October 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Cretog8

Supposedly new user, offensive username with monetary references, very first edit [16] was reverting a bit of talk page stuff from a previous sock. User page and talk page are part of the troll. It's all very much shouting, "I'm Karmaisking!" CRETOG8( t/ c) 06:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
12 October 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Lawrencekhoo

Behaviorally similar to previous KiK socks. Same topics of interests, same types of arguments, same personal insults. Name follows the usual pattern, CDO = Collateralized debt obligations. Suggest checkuser to weed out other socks. LK ( talk) 09:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims. Wrong. Check location. I live in another place... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.58.30 ( talk • contribs) 12:00, October 12, 2010

= Responses from others =
"Another place" which is different from where exactly....? BigK HeX ( talk) 12:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC) reply
IP geolocates to general region of KiK - Australia. Different ISP than earlier confirmed IP's, but it locates to Brisbane which other IP's did as well. Doesn't fit everything, but sources and tone are similar. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments by other users

I, too, feel the listed user exhibits coincidental interests (Austrian School, and topics regarding criticism of the current financial system). And the comments and content of the edits are also suspicious.

Additionally, I'd ask that any recent anon-IP that may be found during a checkuser be listed, please (even if they might not necessarily end up blocked). I think some of the recent IP edits are also KiK socks. BigK HeX ( talk) 11:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  •  Confirmed the following:

information Administrator note CDODISASTER blocked and tagged. Their contribs alone quack enough to me. Elockid ( Talk) 20:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC) reply

15 October 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Ravensfire

Edits fit the usual KiK pattern - see recent edits to Austrian business cycle theory. User name is a reference to Ballarat, Victoria in Australia where major gold mines are located. One of Kik's favorite subjects is the return to the gold standard.

CU check is for any sleepers. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Possible that User:BallaratMines is a sock of User:Karmaisking. Geolocation is close but not conclusive. No sleepers found.  Frank  |   talk  22:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC) reply

19 October 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Ravensfire

Usual KiK stuff - see contributions and user page. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Confirmed. No sleepers. TN X Man 14:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply

28 October 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Ravensfire

Usual Kik pattern, CU is for sleeper check. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Just one sleeper:

11 November 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Ravensfire

Usual edits on usual topics, complete with caustic tone. CU check is for sleepers. Ravensfire ( talk) 15:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply


Auto-generated every six hours.

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

On top of the CU info, I'd add that the behavioral evidence is a pretty good match as well. Please be advised that the Long Term Abuse team's pressure caused significant changes in KiK's ability to post. BigK HeX ( talk) 22:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Forgive the bump/prod, but could someone make a call one-way or on this? From pure behavior, I'm convinced it's KiK and have continued to revert on that basis. If the user is not blocked as a KiK sock , then those of us that monitor Kik's articles will have an apparent clone to work with and need to know that. Thanks! Ravensfire ( talk) 15:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

You appear to have listed the same account twice. To whom is this account related? TN X Man 16:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Oh whoops - I'm sorry about that! It should be for Karmaisking. My apologies. Ravensfire ( talk) 17:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Red X Unrelated to Karmaisking, unfortunately. – MuZemike 17:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Hold on, I may have checked an account that was not a Karmaisking sock. I'm going to check again with a different previous sock. – MuZemike 17:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply
I was looking into this the same time MuZemike was. My finding is a  Likely match, given the edits and geographic area. I'd also like to hear what MuZemike says as well. TN X Man 17:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I would say it's  Possible due to the variance in the geographical area and user agents, but that is based only on technical evidence. – MuZemike 17:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I will note that the initial CU result was  Possible, but a later check came back as  Confirmed. – MuZemike 01:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC) reply

13 December 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

This diff contains his usual rants and blatant POV. A periodic checkuser sweep seems standard for this fella. BigK HeX ( talk) 13:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC) reply

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
 Confirmed TN X Man 20:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC) reply
16 April 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Same edit [17] as previous KiK socks, plus similar user page. CU check is for any other socks, KiK rarely travels alone. Ravensfire ( talk) 19:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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
One more, User:Silver-Metal'sSuperman, blocked. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 22:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply
06 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Usual flags for Kik - user name capitalization, rants against editors he doesn't like, editin economics articles. The Andrej Pejic article is for a model living in Australia, KiK's home country. Checkuser is for any possible sleepers - see [18] in particular. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply

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

And how.  Confirmed the following:

information Administrator note All blocked and tagged. Elockid ( Talk) 15:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply

06 July 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Socks have already been blocked by Elockid based on duck test. (See User_talk:Elockid#Some_new_KiK_socks.) SPI is for sleepers. LK ( talk) 08:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC) reply

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

No sleepers. TN X Man 13:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC) reply

 Clerk note: All already blocked and tagged. Elockid ( Talk) 20:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC) reply

30 March 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Name is typical for Kik socks, plus probably self-admittance here. CU is for any possible sleepers as Kik often would create multiple socks. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC) reply

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

 Confirmed, but no other accounts that I saw. TN X Man 14:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC) reply

12 August 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Mmahoney393 has similarity to Karmaisking and his socks: interest in and support of Austrian economics, edit-warring, aggressive writing style and located in Australia. The editor implies he is the same as the dynamic IP that began editing recently. Is it possible to block that range? TFD ( talk) 05:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I support this request. The behavior of this SPA (edit warring, personal insults, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior, and now a request for formal mediation [19]) is inconsistent with a supposedly 3-day old user, and totally consistent with the antics of Karmaisking. LK ( talk) 11:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC) reply
"Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT#Signs_of_disruptive_editing Mmahoney393 ( talk) 11:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC) reply


Comments by other users

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

This is all rock solid evidence guys, because god knows there could be only one vigorous defender of Austrian economics on the continent of Australia. (Because it's a heterodox position, being passionate about the topic comes with the territory of being Austrian, so your logic would ban every Austrian in Australia, which I'm sure sounds fine to you, but may be detrimental to the pursuit of knowledge) I definitely recommend blocking the entire University of Sydney from editing wikipedia based on your top notch deductions. Guess I would just go to the coffee shop next door. One question for the team of sleuths: if I am Karmaisking, why would I shift from an obvious pseudonym to an obvious real name derivative, especially if I'm planning to keep popping up with different accounts? Mmahoney393 ( talk) 11:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I am Karmaisking and can confirm Mmahoney393 has nothing to do with me. I don't know who this dude is. Just another example of the fanatical zealotry of the queer (in the sense of "odd") Keynesian zombies. "Kill Austrians first, ask questions later." If you need to kill off every Australian Austrian, so be it. They sound similar anyway, so let's kill off anything with the prefix "Aust" and perhaps they'll all go away and we can keep counterfeiting forever. At least that's the hope. - LK'sPatsy ( talk) 02:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC) reply
This would all be a lot more convincing except that:
  1. A dogmatic tendentious SPA shows up every once in a while to edit war the same POV at Austrian school
  2. The supposedly new user quickly descends to insults and vulgar personal attacks.
  3. And amazingly, they always seem to geo-locate to Australia
  4. KiK has made the same "that's not me" claim before, only to later admit it or have the account be proven a sock through check user.
-- LK ( talk) 08:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC) reply
I agree. This seems to be a sock puppet. -- MeUser42 ( talk) 10:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC) reply
This is insane. (1) I don't have access to Uni of Sydney computers. I'm not enrolled. Previous edits have NEVER come from anywhere near the UofS. (2) Mmahoney393 is not a name I'd ever use, nor have I EVER used a name like that previously. I note in passing as a humorous aside that at least 10 innocent users have already been listed as Sockppts and blocked when in fact they were not me. I laughed at your idiocy in the past and thought it was funny. I'm not laughing over this one. (3) Mmahoney393's writing style isn't even vaguely close to mine (4) I haven't edited for many months on ASchool (only a few joke edits on CofFRB) because I've found a site more to my liking (5) I've never had nor ever shown an obsession with Austrian predictions. Austrians generally abhor the idea that anyone can predict anything in economics and treat modelling as cheap charlatanism (6) The mere fact someone edits from the same COUNTRY (24 million people approx) is no ground for blocking. That's f*cking INSANE (7) LK is nothing but a Keynesian banker-sucking robot and blind to his own madness, but I've never called anyone an asshole, so again the writing style is inconsistent with the allegation. (8) Mmahoney393 never uses CAPS. I use them ALL THE TIME. (9) This Dalek-like "EXTERMINATE!" madness has got to stop. You guys are losing it. Thank God I've found a site that allows me to work in peace until the next European bank run - or food crisis - kicks in and destroys us all. - LK'sPatsy ( talk) 11:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC) reply

The writing style of Mmahoney393 seems similar to LK'sPatsy's despite his comment, "Mmahoney393's writing style isn't even vaguely close to mine". Long, abrasive, pro-Austrian, edit-warring and the same intellectual/educational level. The IP used by Mmahoney is a "suspected proxy server", which means "this IP address represents the public IP address of a router or firewall with more than one device behind it." [21] Both are Australian and it is more than coincidental that Karmaisking returned to defend Mmahoney393. TFD ( talk) 05:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Please note that there is a big difference between a legitimate campus proxy server and an open proxy available to the public. ​— DoRD ( talk)​ 13:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


14 August 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


User has several traits common to Kik socks. The user name is an attack on an editor that Kik clashes with and probably alone is enough for a username block. And of course, in this [22] post, the user self-identifies as Kik. CU check is for any sleepers. Ravensfire ( talk) 13:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC) reply

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
17 October 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

FRB123 has very similar editing history [23] to banned user Karmaisking and his socks, editing essentially only topics that Karmaisking and socks have previously shown interest in: Austrian economics, Fractional reserve banking , Full-reserve banking, Criticism of fractional reserve banking, Monetary reform, Embezzlement (see [24]).

FRB123 started intensely editing very quickly after joining (see history [25]), showing a familiarity with Wikipedia that is unusual for a new user. A previously suspected sock of Karmaisking, User:Mmahoney393, disappeared shortly before FRB123 appeared.

An anonymous IP (138.130.110.148) has also conveniently popped up to support FRB123 in reverting to his preferred version, and supporting FRB123's arguments on the talk page. (See Talk:Austrian_School#Heterodox_in_the_lead) The IP is located in Australia, the known location of Karmaisking. I also include for reference a recent self-admitted sock of Karmaisking, User:LK'sPatsy, and recent suspected IP's for Karmaisking.

-- LK ( talk) 07:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC) reply

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
  • Mmahoney393 is  Possible, but the results are not solid to draw any sort of conclusion on. I would only consider behavoiral evidence when deciding Mmahoney393. no No comment with respect to IP address(es). -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 07:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply
06 November 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

IP socks of banned user karmaisking the IPs are editing on Austrian School economics and various banking and money-related articles. '''SPECIFICO''' ( talk) 17:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Additional abusive edit:

The preceeding edit by the sockpuppet reverted my removal of the material added by another of its sockpuppets, FRB123, which is banned. Diff given here:

'''SPECIFICO''' ( talk) 00:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Nov. 7 activity including a large addition of material deemed fringe per prior talk, with hostile sarcastic edit summary.

Concession that this user has been banned, appears to confess to being sock of karmaisking

Comments by other users

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

The recent edits to Austrian School and Fractional reserve banking fit exactly into Karmaisking's behaviour profile. For example, this abusive edit summary is typical Karmaisking behavior: [27]

Although the anon IP's originate from two cities in South Eastern Australia, the similarity of language, the focus of their edits, proximity in time, and the fact that they reintroduce the same material, rules out the hypothesis that these are two different unrelated people. At best, these are two editors who are tandem editing, I would guess more likely is that both IPs are Karmaisking, and that he either i) uses two different ISPs that geolocate to two different cities, ii) has long distance access to a computer or an IP proxy in another city, or iii) frequently travels between both cities.

I've also added two recent accounts that are obvious Karmaisking socks. Given the high level of long term abuse, would a range block be appropriate? A checkuser for sleepers would also be nice. LK ( talk) 04:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply

In this edit, 203.209.200.93 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) responds to the removal of a comment left by 124.176.79.201 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), by deleting one of my comments and leaving the edit summary "Either his shit is deleted or my comment stays". This confirms that, even though they geolocate to different cities, both anon IPs, 203.209.200.93 and 124.176.79.201, are controlled by the same user, Karmaisking. LK ( talk) 04:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Confirmed the following are the same:
02 December 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


New editor, concentrating almost entirely on Fractional reserve banking, an area of importance to Karmaisking. [28] Posts long talk page entries explaining fractional reserve banking and why it is bad. (Compare Prettyladieslover's posting with this edit by FRB123, a recently blocked sock.) Also, Prettyladieslover added a link to an article on the Mises wiki. [29] That article was mostly written by and recently edited by an editor called Karmaisking. [30] TFD ( talk) 18:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC) reply

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
13 January 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Edit warring and repeated insertion of POV, unsourced, and non-RS sources at articles about Austrian School, Fractional Reserve Banking, Murray Rothbard, and other economic topics. Fits the behavior profile of other Karmaisking socks in these articles. Warned here: [31]


RE: Amanski,

'''SPECIFICO''' ( talk) 18:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

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
Tiptoety, is the user in Australia? KiK has access to service providers in different Australian cities. I wonder if you noticed my observervation in a previous CU, [32] where I note, "... This confirms that, even though they geolocate to different cities, both anon IPs, 1203.209.200.93 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 1124.176.79.201 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), are controlled by the same user, Karmaisking."
Thanks. -- LK ( talk) 02:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Per the privacy policy, I can not go into much detail surrounding the geolocate of users. That said, I am aware that Karmaisking geolocates to Australia and took that into consideration when posting the CU results above. Tiptoety talk 03:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC) reply
01 March 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

Contentious edits continuing recent edit war on Austrian School article. User first posted talk page comment as IP, then refactored to substitute user name signature. IP Geolocates to Australia, home of sockmaster karmaisking. Diffs: Australian ip-signed text refactor to username threat to resume edit war reverting consensus text SPECIFICO talk 14:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC) reply

New user WeOweItToOurselves [33] has just reverted properly sourced relevant text here [34] that was previously reverted here [35] by previously identified suspected Karmaisking sock IP user:101.161.151.75 [36] (which geolocates to Australia) I am adding the new IP and new user name to the sock and IP space above.

Comments by other users

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

I support this report. Based on the edit histories, these appear to be KiK socks. LK ( talk) 06:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • CheckUser requested - Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention - Obviously experienced users leap into a content dispute in their first edits, so endorsing to see if they are the same person. There are no ripe Karmaisking socks in the archive, but perhaps some old logs will be enlightening for comparison. Someguy1221 ( talk) 00:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  • From what we have in the archive and what I can see, I give it  Possible that both of these accounts have the same master. Based on editing patterns, time frames, location, and technical information combined, I call this  Likely. There just isn't enough raw data to confirm. I wouldn't advise blocking the IPs. Keegan ( talk) 03:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC) reply
09 November 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


This IP has recently begun editing and shows many similarities with Karmaisking: interest in individualist anarchism, [37] abrasive postings and edit summaries, and edit-warring. [38] Also the IP locates to Australia. The edit pattern shows a familiarity with Wikipedia, so they are unlikely a new editor. TFD ( talk) 06:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Basically -- I do not see any overlapping which is sufficient for this report. Having a handful of edits on Anarchism is not quite enough to label an IP who seems far more pre-occupied with popular culture from their contributions list than as being a "sock." As for "Australia" one prior sock was in Brisbane, and this IP is in Perth. I dunno a lot about geography of Australia, but Perth is not a suburb of Brisbane, last I checked. The other articles do not seem to match any of the prior socks either -- this is a case of Jonathan Harker, I fear. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 14:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I'm not familiar with this LTV, but I don't see much in the way of behavioral similarities. Drmies ( talk) 14:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Has it occurred to you that the "evidence" is remarkably lacking -- other than your assertion that Perth and Brisbane are nearby <g> (over 2000 miles apart)? The style does not fit Kik, the topics do not match Kik, and the location does not match any prior location for Kik. Now you add a blocked editor who did indeed concentrate on a banking article, but absent any other evidence, the SPI case is not going anywhere at all. The times also do not gibe -- the IP edited mainly from 2 to 5 am GMT on Saturday, AR made no edits after 1 am GMT on Saturday. Kik made few edits at all on Saturdays, with a very large percentage on Tuesday and Thursday , and very few in the Saturday morning hours. So -- no place overlap, no style overlap, no time overlap. Leading to a remarkable possibility - that the evidence is lacking for any investigation here. Now I grant that it is possible that a sock will not show interest in the same topics as the sockmaster -- but that is unusual. It is possible that a sock will set his alarm clock to set entirely different editing hours. It is possible that a sock will use completely different vocabulary, etc. But is it likely? Cheers. BTW, with so few edits involved for the IP, the likelihood that your evidence means anything is nil. AR, btw, is currently rightly blocked for edit war. Collect ( talk) 21:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I would agree with Collect on this. I don't think this IP is Kik. The geography isn't right. I couldn't find an IP that Kik used in the earlier SPI's that was from Perth. AR is more likely to have been Kik but I think an early SPI didn't find a strong enough connection. Ravensfire ( talk) 21:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Also, AR is, wait, NPA--a person who makes idiotic edits and goes about it in an idiotic way, unlike your master. Drmies ( talk) 23:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Does anyone find it unusual that a new account makes 50 edits in 5 days, which other than minor edits are on Anarchism, that they report another editor at ANI, accuse other editors of "dickish" behavior, edit-war and are themselves reported for edit-warring? Does anyone think that this is the type of editing that should be encouraged? TFD ( talk) 01:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I don't think anyone disagrees that this is a sock of someone, but I just don't think it's KiK. Ravensfire ( talk) 03:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply
12 edits on Anarchism and its talk page. 22 not related to the Anarchism page. Nor to any topic associated, AFAICT, with Kik. Could it be a sock of someone? Maybe -- but it would be a fishing expedition. Could it be a person who had edited as an IP with a slightly different IP address? Yep. Could it be a new user who had actually read the main policies? Yep. But while fishing is fun, SPI is not the place to do it. Collect ( talk) 13:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply
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
21 February 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

It's been a while, but KiK is back. New sock who's edited the same articles, pushing the Austrian viewpoint. The name is also right in line with KiK's style. CU for any possible sleepers KiK has created Ravensfire ( talk) 13:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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
  • no Declined - In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this.

Also, given that the data is stale I'm not sure CU would be much help anyway. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 09:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC) Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 09:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC) reply

01 October 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual camel-case username blasting conventional monetary policies and editing same articles with similar tone. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Karmaisking. Ravensfire ( talk) 15:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply

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

22 October 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual camelcase user name with usual bank bashing theme. Same as previous sock Ravensfire ( talk) 13:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC) reply

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

Cookie cutter. Blocked, tagged, closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC) reply

14 January 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Typical KiK user name (note that MMT refers to Modern Monetary Theory, editing on their favorite article. First edit [39] is similar to this edit by confirmed KiK sock. I strongly suspect the IP edits from January 14 are also KiK (see similarities to the same previous edit, especially moving the Caplan quote. Ravensfire ( talk) 16:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC) reply

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

22 August 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Username = WP:DUCK Everymorning (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

I didn't check but this is far more likely Incorrigible Troll ( talk · contribs · count). Closing anyway.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply

25 June 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual camel case name referencing fiat or fractional-reserve concepts, especially with a not-so-subtle dig as part of the name. Edits are to fractional reserve banking and Austrian School articles, plus some edits to Australian political articles (KiK's IP addresses are invariably from Australia).

CU is requested for possible sleepers as KiK used to create multiple accounts. Ravensfire ( talk) 12:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC) reply

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

This case is  Stale. CU declined.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 12:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC) reply

19 September 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

First edit [40] is a massive edit to KiK's favorite target, probably copying the article from the version he's created on the mises wiki. Also note the usual camel case name. Ravensfire ( talk) 13:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Added IP as this was also used by KiK on the 19th and has previously been used by them in the past. Ravensfire ( talk) 13:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC) reply

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

17 October 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

Editor is restoring edits [41] made by IP [42]that geo locations to common Kik location (and prior edits around Austrian business cycle theory are classic Kik. Name is the usual Kik camel case and references topics they promote, the edits are strong POV towards full reserve banking which is Kik's usual theme. CU for possible sleepers as this is the first sock I've seen in a bit. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

 Confirmed to previous socks. No other accounts seen, which is precisely what happened on the last check in September 2018. Blocked, tagged, closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC) reply

26 November 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

Edits to Austrian School [43], camelcase user name that's somewhat insulting. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

All  Blocked and tagged. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 14:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply


09 December 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual camelcase name about monetary reform / austrian school. Similar edits to [44] from recent Kik sock. Ravensfire ( talk) 04:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

14 December 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual name format and mentions of gold. Similar edits to Monetary reform. That article probably needs to be semi-protected. Ravensfire ( talk) 01:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

24 January 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual camel case name related to money, similar edits to similar articles Ravensfire ( talk) 01:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

12 February 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual camel-case name, reference to Harvey Weinstein is different from usual econ reference, but still not unusual. First edit was to Money Reform, common target, adding full reserve banking and Austrian econ promoters. Next was to create basic user page, also common pattern. Last edit was to promote conspiracy theory which Kik has done before with other theories. Ravensfire ( talk) 16:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

 Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

27 February 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual camel-case name, usual edits to Fractional-reserve banking pushing Austrian POV. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

15 March 2020

Suspected sockpuppets


New user immediately restores massive edit previously made by sock, then after being reverted does so again. This is identical to edits made by previously blocked socks Weinstein'sWeiner and YouCan'tPrintYourWayOutOfAPandemic. Extremely similar edit summaries as well. Neutrality talk 21:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Zero question this is Kik. Usual camel-case name, note that Kik is from Australia, so the reference is quite appropriate. Restoring large POV/Fringe edits to the Fractional reserve banking article, their favorite target. Ravensfire ( talk) 23:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

20 March 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual name, restored edit of last sock Ravensfire ( talk) 14:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

26 March 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual name format, edits to Monetary reform. Ravensfire ( talk) 13:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

30 March 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual name, usual article, may need to protect Monetary reform. Ravensfire ( talk) 18:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

14 April 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual camel case name with typical theme, editing Austrian business cycle theory article. Ravensfire ( talk) 23:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply

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

21 April 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual name, mentions typical article targets in their post on my talk page, which they can't edit because of protection put in place to stop them. Ravensfire ( talk) 13:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC) reply

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

06 September 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual camel case name, pushing usual version of the Fractional-reserve banking page copied from the Mises wiki where Kik is the most active editor on pages like this. Ravensfire ( talk) 22:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC) reply

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

26 October 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Same sprawling edit to Fractional-reserve banking as previous Karmaisking socks. Compare this user's edit to that of confirmed sockpuppet HereComesThe Cull. Also matches the pattern of Special:Contributions/Inflation'sLastLaugh (can't link diffs due to revdel) and their sockpuppet Special:Contributions/WokesterSupplyChainChaos (ditto), which aren't tagged as Karma socks but probably should be. CU needed despite the duckiness as Karma frequently runs multiple socks at the same time (see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Karmaisking). Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 13:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Karmaisking/Archive&oldid=1118383136"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE