Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PennySeven/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


PennySeven

Report date May 10 2010, 04:28 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Lawrencekhoo
[edit]

User PennySeven has been indef blocked since March 2010 for repeated abuse at inflation. He then engaged in block evasion via IP socking to continue abuse. This has continued for sometime, most recently here. All IP socks geolocate to Portugal.

There has also been suspicious activity at Constant Purchasing Power Accounting, which is PennySeven's main interest. Some single purpose accounts have been editing this relatively little known article.

More recently, there has been some suspicious activity at deflation. I discussed this with User:JRSpriggs here, and we both agree that it is likely sockpuppet activity.

PennySeven is likely the same person as User:Nicolaas Smith, who also shares the same interest in inflation and Constant Purchasing Power Accounting. Nicolaas Smith has a history of sockpuppeting, and was banned in May 2008. (See the SPI case for Nicolaas Smith here).

I would like a CheckUser to clarify the status of these accounts, so that a proper response can be taken. --LK (talk) 04:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]

I notice a similarity between quite a few of the disposable registered users listed in that they made pretty pointless edits to their user and talk pages, presumably just to stop them being red links. That shows a common approach and a familiarity with how experienced Wikipedians tend to draw an inference from red links on user and talk pages as indicating new user who may require help or advice. Would a genuine new user know this or have any desire to deflect such attention from experienced users? I am not sure how that fits with the big picture here but it looks like there is something funny going on. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: CODE LETTER (Unknown code )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by LK (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed –MuZemike 15:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


 Confirmed PennySeven (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) =

He's done some editing logged out too. Ranges are too busy to block at this point. J.delanoygabsadds 03:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Remaining confirmed accounts blocked. All blocked accounts tagged. I'm not going to block the IPs since all but one haven't edited in a while and they're likely to change. Ranges look to big to block and per J.delanoy, they shouldn't be blocked. 03:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser.
11 November 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Acather96
[edit]

NotAGroup has some kind of grudge against CrosbieSmith (see his talk page and Crosbie's) regarding the Fiat money article. I suspect SharpPanga is a sock as his only edits are to CrosbieSmith's talkpage making personal attacks, calling him and idiot and stupid. The account was registered today, and the dispute is very recent (possibly on-going). So I think that SharpPanga is a sock of NotAGroup used to make personal attacks, and I request CU evidence to prove this. Acather96 (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Acather. Looking at the timings though, I don't think NotAGroup did this. - Crosbie 18:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

::Hang on. This is weird. It looks like your gaming the system, because you know who did this, it was you! You created SharpPanga's talk page, using the edit summary of "Alternative account". So why make an alternative account, use it to make a PA against yourself, and then not admit to it when I filed the SPI? You're just wasting peoples time, you could have said there and then that you were sorry and explained why you did it, instead of misleading people further. Acather96 (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't me. Based on the timings I'm pretty sure I do know who did it - another editor with who I have had 'extended discussions', and who has been blocked for socking in the past. But I don't think it was meant in particular ill humour this time. - Crosbie 19:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh no, me completley over-reacting and misreading the situation, ignore what I said above. CU results are coming though :) Acather96 (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't apologize. My very silly comments on User talk:SharpPanga confused matters. - Crosbie 19:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops - guess I was wrong about the culprit. I suppose a lot of people edit on their lunch hour. - Crosbie 20:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Auto-generated every six hours.

Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

 Confirmed as socks of PennySeven (talk · contribs):

  1. NotAGroup (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. SharpPanga (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  3. VictoriaUniversity (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  4. InnsbrookeInstitute (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  5. Clydesidemounter (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  6. Fresnosneezer (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  7. Vivid-uppercut (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  8. IkeaCampMat (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  9. Montlivei (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  10. JuntaDag (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  11. DoubleScotchOnTheRocks (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  12. Ifrsperspective (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  13. Kayleigh Okinawa (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  14. GalapagosView (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  15. WashingtonDriveIn (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  16. SardiniaGulley (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  17. CrazyCioccolato (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  18. Pezzetini (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  19. LatteComCasserual (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  20. ToffieAppel (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  21. Trendy gangster (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  22. JoLekaDing (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  23. Pockishdec (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  24. YuanOke (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  25. Sunriftvalley (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  26. YouImpedeScienceYouImbecile (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  27. YouAreQuitePowerlessAren´tYou (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  28. SoWhatAreYouGoingToDoAboutIt (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  29. Tiekie8-1 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  30. MoedaSete (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  31. EnJayEss (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  32. Usgaapview (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  33. Usgaap123 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  34. Ifrsforyou (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  35. Ifrsnews (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  36. Mrs Lucky (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  37. SanFranciscoGraduate (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  38. AdditionalWords (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  39. ContributerABC (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  40. HaanKam (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  41. MPETER (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

A couple of IP ranges softblocked, but a couple of the others have more unrelated accounts being created, so I have to leave them unblocked. I would strongly recommend semi-protection of all pages involved.

Also, Crosbiesmith is completely Red X Unrelated. –MuZemike 19:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

26 April 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Displays the same behavioural patterns as PennySeven: edits the Inflation article to insert the same content, relying on the same sources. Bilby (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Along with the same editing style - lots of small comments, often effectively in reply to their own comments - there is a very common theme combined with the same writing style and sources. For example, in [1] there are the same points made two years earlier, [2][3] including the reference to Turkish academics as the source, and the same "You stated: ..." method of writing responses. We also see the same Turkish academic (using all caps for the academic's name) in PennySeven's comments as was referenced in edits by Isaltino Swissa [4]. - Bilby (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Nice catch, Bilby. I thought the contributions looked familiar, but hadn't established it as cleanly as you did. Blocking pending further action. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
05 September 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


ERRPolution's only edit[5] is to insert content that has been previously edit warred over by banned user PennySeven (& socks), several times over the past few years. For example, see [6], [7], [8], [9] CU is for possible sleepers as Pennyseven often creates multiple socks. LK (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
21 May 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


PennySeven is obsessed with the areas of inflation, accounting, and fiat money, and MonteDaCunca displays the same areas of obsession. MonteDaCunca has also been pushing the International Accounting Standard Board (IASB) view of hyperinflation, something which PennySeven socks have pushed before. For example, NotAGroup (talk · contribs), a confirmed sock of PennySeven, inserted this:[10] NotAGroup's and MonteDaCunca's multiple edits to the hyperinflation article confirms Penny Seven's obsession with it. See [11] and [12]. MonteDaCunca also has the same editing style as PennySeven, which I won't detail but which should be obvious from looking at the two histories.

Lastly, MonteDaCunca has been disruptive in the same manner as PennySeven was, engaging in edit warring, posting long combative walls of text, WP:IDHT and personal attacks. He has even gone off on admin Barek, who has shown remarkable forbearance. See here:[13] Compare that wall of text with this one [14] by PennySeven and it's pretty obvious that it's the work of the same person. Since the last case was a couple of years ago, I think this needs to be judged on the WP:DUCK test. But this one quacks pretty loudly. LK (talk) 05:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: This edit that mentions the "Hanke-Krus Hyperinflation Table"[15] looks familiar to me, I've seen it from a PennySeven sock before, but would be a bit hard pressed to locate it in the history right now. LK (talk) 06:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

I am not a sockpuppet.MonteDaCunca (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been warned on multiple occasions by myself and others to be WP:CIVIL and abide by WP:NPA. As I am unfamiliar with PennySeven, I can't comment on how similar such disruptions have been, but the user in question certainty doesn't contribute to the community. I think a ban or block is the best approach as multiple warnings and suggestions to change behavior have gone unheeded. Fleetham (talk) 08:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrencekoo states above:

"MonteDaCunca has also been pushing the International Accounting Standard Board (IASB) view of hyperinflation,"

147 countries push the IASB's definition. Please name just one country that pushes for another definition? Strange that 147 countries push for the IASB definition, isn't it? Must be something wrong with the world economy. Basically the entire world economy pushing for the same definition. No-one out of line. Only Lawrencekoo. Lawrencekoo, please name one country that uses Cagan's definition. Thank you. MonteDaCunca (talk) 08:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"the user in question certainty doesn't contribute to the community." lol You know that is not true. Feetham, you have no credibility here when you state things that are easy to verify to be completely untrue. Please stop with untrue statements over here.Check my edit contributions! My contributions are there for everyone to check! By the way, Fleetham, can you name one country that follows Cagan's definition of hyperinflation? MonteDaCunca (talk) 08:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is all about the IASB's or Cagan's definition of hyperinflation. It is clearly explained on the talk page that no country uses Cagan's definition. Fleetham accepts that. Lawrencekoo refuses to read the hyperinflation talk page. He wants to weaken WP by having the wrong information on the hyperinflation page. That is very clear. Please, anyone here: name one country that today follows Cagan's definition? I want to improve WP as I have in many edits on the bitcoin article. I wish to have a verifiable point of view on the hyperinflation page. Lawrencekoo refuses even to enter once into the discussion about which definition is today followed by countries in the world economy. It is difficult to understand why he does not want to enter into discussion. It is very well explained on the hyperinflation talk page. Fleetham already stated that he does not think Cagan's definition should even be mentioned in the hyperinflation article. However, 99.9% of the article is based on Cagan's definition. How all of you can just ignore that is beyond understanding. MonteDaCunca (talk) 10:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Krus, one of the authors of the Hanke-Krus Hyperinflation Table presented in the article, personally on the talk page already stated that he is prepared to do the massive amount of work to prepare a table based on the IASB's definition - in order to advance knowledge on WP. How correct and admirable! He already admitted that only some academics use Cagan´s definition. On the other hand, Lawrencekoo over here, is not interested in the advancement of knowledge here on WP: he refuses even to enter into the discussion about the matter. He just reverts. At least Fleetham read the talk page discussion and stated that he thinks Cagan's definition should not even be mentioned in the article. Lawrencekoo, you are totally alone in the world on this one. MonteDaCunca (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three editors, Fred.C, Prof. Mc and JonPatterns asked for discussion on the Hyperinflation talk page to get consensus on the definition issue. I gave lengthy explanations. Fleetham gave his opinion. Enters Lawerencekoo: What? Discussion as requested by 3 other editors? Not Lawrencekoo: he does not take part in the discussion, he just reverts. Makes you think, doesn´t it? MonteDaCunca (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appeal to all editors reading this for you to also encourage Lawrenckoo to take part in the discussion on the Hyperinflation Talk Page to find consensus regarding the generally accepted definition of hyperinflation in the world today. MonteDaCunca (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I did not post a note to Talk:Hyperinflation to get consensus. I could not care less about the definition of hyperinflation. I was pointing out that your editing was disruptive and that "the country-specific sections now look silly and awkward." You created confusion in the article with edits that were, as you essentially admitted, using the main page to advance an academic argument. I was suggesting a way to make the page less awkward and confusing. Sock puppet or not, I don't know. Your edits--well-intentioned or not--were disruptive. I reverted the first few, then posted a note on Talk:Hyperinflation, and then after getting some advice from a more-experienced editor I posted a note to the WikiProject Economic talk page. End of story for me. Prof. Mc (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prof. Mc: This is a copy of what you stated: "@MonteDaCunca:, @C.Fred:--Whether Cagan is accepted or not, the country-specific sections now look silly and awkward. Why not lead the entire country section with a note that says something like "The methodology used to calculate hyperinflation in the countries marked with an asterisks below was based on a definition by Cagan that is not generally accepted any more." Or something like that? Or use the new methodology to calculate it for each country and be done. Or put the data in using both methodologies? Right now though the article is confusion. If Cagan isn't used, why have the country listed at all? Or is this page being used to make an argument only economists, and not people reading an encyclopedia, care about? Prof. Mc (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
First of all: You are not telling the truth: You now state above: "I was pointing out that your editing was disruptive" Where did you use word disruptive in you original post? Nowhere. You never used the word disruptive. Need we carry on? You have no credibility Prf. Mc.
To any casual observer your post above looks very much like trying to get consensus. For example: "Why not lead the entire country section with a note that says something like "The methodology used to calculate hyperinflation in the countries marked with an asterisks below was based on a definition by Cagan that is not generally accepted any more." Or something like that? Or use the new methodology to calculate it for each country and be done. Or put the data in using both methodologies?"
You clearly put the post to get consensus. Now you deny it. See for yourself above. You never used the word disruptive.
Now you state: "I could not care less about the definition of hyperinflation."
In your orginal post above you stated: "If Cagan isn't used, why have the country listed at all? Or is this page being used to make an argument only economists, and not people reading an encyclopedia, care about?" I now very seriously doubt your honesty in everything you state!
Prof. Mc: You completely misunderstood what was going on. Now you state: "You created confusion in the article with edits that were, as you essentially admitted, using the main page to advance an academic argument." You are now saying I admitted that I edited the article with edits using the main page to advance an academic argument. You got the whole thing the wrong way round: I changed the article to reflect the IASB's generally accepted definition. The IASB is not an academic institution. It is the International Accounting Standards Board. I am not an academic. You got it all the wrong way round. I explained on the talk page that academics from John Hopkins University who is in Prof Steve Hanke´s (a world famous academic) team at John Hopkins University (an academic institution) was "using the main page to advance an academic argument" - your words now. They are academics and they did what you now attribute to me. You are completely confused. Your submission here is completely invalid. You don´t understand what was happening and what I explained on the article talk page.MonteDaCunca (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response, and I appreciate that you've taken the time to reply. I've explained myself and you've responded. I don't see any further need for my involvement in the SPI, though I will watch with interest. Prof. Mc (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prof Mc: This is your post on the Economic page: "Just a note that the Hyperinflation page has been subject, for the past few days, to a series of edits by a user MonteDaCunca that have rendered the page awkward and difficult to understand. As the talk page shows, the edits seem to be part of an academic dispute over the definition of inflation, with the Hyperinflation edits being used to wage that academic debate. The changes are now fairly extensive, and probably require someone with some expertise or real interest in the subject, and in editing, to go through and check things."
Prof. Mc: You do not say here that I was disruptive, but today you say I was disruptive. You did not use the word disruptive in your original edit on the article talk page and you even did not use it in your report to the Economics page. But, today you want to do me in by now suddenly saying I was disruptive. I think that is a very bad and a very negative way of dealing with things. Why are you so negative towards me today and not before? Do you feel you are expected by the other editors here to be as negative as possible towards me because that is what needs to be invented on this SPI? That is very bad, isn´t it? That is certainly not in the spirit of WP. Please don´t do that again. Take a more positive attitude in life. You are really doing something very wrong here in public. MonteDaCunca (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prof. Mc: You stated above: "you essentially admitted, using the main page to advance an academic argument." I never did. Prove it. I did not advance an academic argument. You are completely mistaken. Please prove it - otherwise take back what you have stated before. MonteDaCunca (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, Prof. Mc: We clearly proved above that you did post to the hyperinflation talk page to get consensus. Now you want to do me in. Sad, very sad. Don´t worry Prof. Mc: you will get a lot of respect from the other editors here. They all want to do me in too, just like you. You did the right thing in their eyes. MonteDaCunca (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrencekoo states above that my edits regarding the IASB's generally accepted definition of hyperinflation is similar to NotAGroup's and links to the following edit by NotAGroup: " IASB is currently still requesting comment on its Exposure Draft: Severe Hyperinflation - Proposed Amendment to IFRS 1 - in which it proposes that the". This has absolutely nothing to do with the IASB's definition being 100% cumulative inflation over three years. The link by Lawrencekoo is completely invalid. I ask that it be ignored as evidence for this SPI. It has nothing to do with the IASB's definition of hyperinflation. It is completely invalid. MonteDaCunca (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following part of Lawrencekoo's accusation thus has to be ignored since it is completely invalid and not acceptable as evidence: " MonteDaCunca has also been pushing the International Accounting Standard Board (IASB) view of hyperinflation, something which PennySeven socks have pushed before. For example, NotAGroup (talk · contribs), a confirmed sock of PennySeven, inserted this:[1]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by MonteDaCunca (talk • contribs) 15:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lawrencekoo accuses me of being "obsessed" with the articles I edit. Other editors, for example, Prof. Mc above, see it as follows: " someone with some expertise or real interest in the subject,". Yes, I have a real interest in the subjects I edit on Wikipedia. I find them really interesting and try to contribute to the WP project in the best way I can, to improve it and to add more content to it. I think that is normal for all WP editors. I disagree with Lawrencekoo that I am "obsessed" with these subjects. Lawrencekoo using the term "obsessed" tells us a bit about how his mind works. He falsely tries to project me as an editor that is "obsessed" with articles. I am not. I lose interest once an article is fully up-to-date with what is happening in the world. MonteDaCunca (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lawrencekoo, I hereby invite you to take part on the Hyperinflation Talk Page in the discussion regarding whether Cagan's 1956 definition of hyperinflation or the IASB's 1989 definition, currently followed by 147 countries (not followed by one single country) is the generally accepted definition of hyperinflation. MonteDaCunca (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lawrenckoo, Please explain why you deleted the following, verbatim, Deloitte (a Big Four audit firm) referenced content twice in a short period of time from the Hyperinflation page:
Countries with three-year cumulative inflation rates exceeding 100%:
Belarus
Islamic Republic of Iran
South Sudan (although South Sudan only became independent of Sudan in July 2011 and data is not yet available to calculate a three-year cumulative inflation rate, the three-year cumulative inflation rate is projected to be 129% by the end of 2013)
Venezuela
Sudan [1]
You see, Lawrencekoo, both you and Fleetham do this. Not only to me. Fleetham does it to Weurzel on the bitcoin page too. You delete en mass, including validly referenced, in this case, a verbatim quote. You have some preconceived idea, and then you just scoop it all up, without checking each individual contribution made, and delete it. Very disruptive. Then you want to ban me. Both you and Fleetham edit in this very disruptive way. Weurzel was very upset with Fleetham about this habit he has. You have the same habit. So, Lawrencekoo, please explain why you deleted the above referenced content. You see, Lawrencekoo and Fleetham, that is how you operate. Both of you. Ask Weurzel on the bitcoin page about Fleetham. It is all there in the history. MonteDaCunca (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You see, Lawrencekoo, the above is very valuable information on Wikipedia: the article is Hyperinflation and the above (currently deleted - you deleted this reliably referenced content twice in a short period of time) verbatim referenced content shows which countries are currently in hyperinflation. Very useful information to many readers of Wikipedia. I am thus going to put it back. Ok? Please do not delete it again. Ok, Lawrencekoo?. MonteDaCunca (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lawrencekoo: I added the Deloitte referenced content to the article. Not because I am obsessed with the article, but, because I find it useful to have that information available to WP readers. Please do not delete it a third time. That will get you banned for a while. That is the rule here on WP. Most probably all the people involved here on this SPI can ban you for that. They really know the rules very well. They and you know about the 3RR rule. So be careful. MonteDaCunca (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was obviously joking about me being blocked for the 3 revert rule.08:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)MonteDaCunca (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand, I hope, MonteDaCunca, that an SPI is not the right place to argue about a content dispute. Maybe some or all of this should be moved to an article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 12:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, Everything about the IASB´s and Cagan's definition of hyperinflation is already on the Hyperinflation talk page for a number of days. It is already there. Go and have a look. Maybe you should direct your comment at Lawrencekoo. He refuses to take part in the discussion on the Hyperinflation talk page. Ask him why he does not want to take part in the very useful discussion. MonteDaCunca (talk) 12:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Deloitte IAS 29 Financial Reporting in Hyperinflationary Economies
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
28 May 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
27 May 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Making edits to Hyperinflation with the same text as recently banned sock puppet User: MonteDaCunca Prof. Mc (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Compare comments by banned sockpuppet User: MonteDaCunca and User:78.130.81.221 at Talk:Hyperinflation
Comments by other users
[edit]

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

I'm pretty familiar with the style and language of PennySeven (talk · contribs), the sockmaster of MonteDaCunca (talk · contribs), and this is definitely him again. I suggest a permanent block of this IP, as it appears to be stable, and a CU to check for sleepers. Also, could a Clerk change the name of this report to "Sockpuppet investigations/PennySeven xx" in order to consolidate the reports under one sockmaster? Thanks, LK (talk) 06:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
17 July 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


[16] - the usage of the "accounting unit of account" term, which was specific for MonteDaCunca, in [17] Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More diffs:

[18] by Homni and [19] by MonteDaCunca

[20] by Homni, notice the edit description, versus the edit description at [21]


[22] versus [23] 

Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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

There are more similarities in style: repeated violation of basic policies such as WP:RS, WP:BRD, WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT, very combative attitude, constantly mentioning other editors by name (not a violation, but a stylistic similarity), responding to complaints about policy violations by denouncing them as personal attacks. This is hardly conclusive evidence, but I think suspicion is warranted. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am grateful that Ladislav made this request and agree with Mmeijeri's observations.

i) accounts belong to one person, because Homni has the same impulsive, crude and ultimately unproductive editing pattern as MonteDaCunca. Both...

  • have not written anything on their user page.
  • are using their account in the same single-use fashion for Bitcoin only
  • failed to build a track record of solid contributions or edits, see Homni's 76 Bitcoin edits in July to date here and MonteDaCunca's 77 edits in May here
  • rarely use edit summaries in a rational manner; either pasting exact and full text of edit into the edit summary, i.e. ignoring directions to summarize here or repeatedly paste the same sentence here
  • have particular animosity directed against Ladislav (MonteDaCunca 8 May 2014)
  • pattern of repeated addition/deletion of same sentence as if trying out here
  • do not properly file references and show no evidence of a learning curve over weeks,
  • pretended to be new to WP as an excuse for non conformity "I did not know",here
  • were preoccupied with the same meta-issues "We have to treat all editors with respect" "I only know we have to show respect to all editors and follow WP procedures" MonteDaCunca,7 May 2014
  • habitually forced consensus "It is impossible for anyone (including Mecir and Fleetham) to be against this solution." MonteDaCunca 5 May 2014 and Homni here
  • posted / spammed numerous provocative identical messages on the talkpages of Ladislav Mecir, Fleetham, Aoidh, Mmeijeri, Wuerzele with deletion /additions too numerous to post here, to incite responses, many repetitively edited back and forth within a minute here or minutes and often erasing their posts themselves here use view history.
  • have a blind spot for their own disruptive editing, spotting it only in others [24].

ii) accounts are used abusively, because Homni

  • uses edit summary to make sarcastic comments or personal attacks here and here and here
  • received a 48h block notice here
  • made an unsuccessful unblock request, in which he generalized attacks on WP as a whole here
  • repeatedly blanked his user page displaying the block, even after warned here and subsequent edits.
  • erased denied unblock request on his page here
  • participates in talk page discussions idiosyncratically and irrationally pompous here, like MonteDaCunca unilaterally declaring consensus here and ignoring consensus here
  • tried block evasion by removing incriminating evidence here as pointed out by Ladislav above.
  • has not proven to be serious, constructive or acting in good faith
  • repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits and responds to feedback or to reverts by edit warring, personal attacks, ridicule, calling criticism personal attacks and personally attacking in his edit summaries on user talk pages and even on his own user page here,here and subsequent edits here.

iii) CheckUser evidence would bring proof for administrators or others who are not able to see or are unconvinced of the similarity of editing patterns, which are incompletely outlined above or which can be detected after reviewing Bitcoin Talk:Bitcoin, User talk:Ladislav Mecir, User talk:Fleetham, User talk:Aoidh, User talk:Wuerzele and User talk:Mmeijeri edit histories for July 2014. I am sorry for not posting earlier to speed this investigation up.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
User Homni has just deleted the term in question on the article Talk page, see this diff: [25] Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed to be socks in the archive of PennySeven (Relevant SPI):
-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
03 December 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


PennySeven is an acknowledged sock of Nicolaas Smith, and this SPI has had more recent activity than that one, so filing here. ItineraryF's only edits so far have been to blank User talk:Nicolaas Smith, so sounds like a duck to me. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


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

ItineraryF can be  Confirmed to match the unblocked User:JorgeGabriel and the already blocked User:August Figure. Beyond that, the archive is stale, so that's as far as CU can take this inquiry. Courcelles 23:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

04 December 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


The first two edits of Craftdraw, [26] and [27] reverted my minor correction edit and added another unsubstantial edit on top of it. This is the same behaviour I observed from Penny Seven. Due to the short history of his commits, I do not have any additional evidence. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison, here are two edits by User:Homni: [28] and [29]. There may be more similar edits by other of User:PennySeven's sockpuppets, but it is hard for me to remember since he used many sockpuppets. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See User:August_Figure as an example of a Penny Seven sockpuppet. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, sorry, the proper name should have been User:PennySeven, sorry for the complications. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further explanation. The above first diff by Craftdraw shows a revert of my minor edit. The revert, in fact, does not make sense, and, normally, I would consider it just an error, and would not even have done anything about it, knowing that a bot would correct it anyway. However, the combination of the two nonsensical edits confirms to me that it was not an error, but an intended act. As an intended act, which is what I am certain of, since it is a combination of two edits, there is exactly one person which exhibits this kind of irrational behaviour directed this way.

As an additional evidence I can offer:

  • the fact that similarly as other PennySeven sockpuppets, Craftdraw did not revert just some random editor but an editor towards whom the actions of PennySeven were directed recently. See [30] by August Figure.
  • the fact that the page at which he made his edit was Bitcoin, which also does not look as exactly random, comparing this to PennySeven's edits represented by quite recent Homni.
  • the fact that Craftdraw added a war portal reference to the Satoshi Nakamoto article in this edit looks compliant with the knowledge about PennySeven's interests.
  • when looking at other edits of Craftdraw, I saw, e.g., this edit by TrollingCraft, which looks as a predecessor of Craftdraw's account.

As I said, due to the short history of the Craftdraw account, I do not have an overwhelming evidence, and maybe the evidence I present makes sense just to me. In my opinion, the explanation of the first two edits of Craftdraw is the simplest possible explanation of the known facts and I am using Occam's razor as an instrument from time to time. I filled this to help to get rid of unhelpful account. If Craftdraw is another sockpuppet of PennySeven, it is just a matter of time there will be more evidence available, unless he starts using other accounts for his edits. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

I am familiar with PennySeven, and I think evidence here is too scant to point either way. I suggest closing the case without prejudice against reopening if more concrete evidence appears. LK (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Clerk note: @Ladislav Mecir: Penny Saver is not a registered account and you provide no diffs for the user's edits. Who are you talking about?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ladislav Mecir: you need to provide me with diffs connecting the edits of Craftdraw to diffs of the master or one of the blocked puppets in the archives. It's not enough to say that it's the same behavior you've observed. That's not evidence. Also, please post your comments in your section, not this one. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ladislav Mecir: I don't see the connection. In the two diffs by Homni, they reverted your edit by restoring a tag. They didn't add anything else to the article. In the two diffs by Craftdraw, you haven't shown me what they reverted. Nor do I see how adding a minor edit to the article is the same as a simple revert of a tag. Please connect the dots better. Remember, unlike you, I am unfamiliar with this master.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm really having a hard time drawing similarities between the the suspected account and the past socks. I genuinely don't think they are connected, so I'm going to close this case with no action taken. Mike V • Talk 21:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10 January 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Sock is a SPA engaged in disruptive behavior and pushing PennySeven's pet topic - denying the standard definition of Hyperinflation (>50% per month) in favor of alternate definition of >100% over 3 years.[31] Language used by sock is also typical of PennySeven. Made no response when tagged as a sock, instead, just blanked the warning.[32] Checkuser is for sleepers, as PennySeven usually creates multiple accounts. LK (talk) 07:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
21 March 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Found while investigating an abusive account at ANI. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


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

25 February 2016

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This IP has been making a nuisance of himself at hyperinflation, continually reinserting his edits (see history page [33]) and harassing established editors.[34] I immediately recognized his edits as being the same as those pushed by previous socks of PennySeven, and tagged the IP as such. The IP just removed the tag and kept on editing.[35] In this edit, the IP essentially admits to being PennySeven,[36] so the identity of the IP is confirmed.

I suggest a checkuser to check for other accounts, as PennySeven often creates multiple sock accounts. Also, if the IP is stable and there is no collateral damage, the IP could be blocked. Thanks! LK (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

As an editor who has watched the Hyperinflation page for some time, and has spent a great deal of time undoing the PennySeven sockpuppet edits, I can say that this editors revisions track the PennySeven revisions almost exactly in style, substance, and tone. Prof. Mc (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

21 May 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

PennySeven is obsessed with the hyperinflation article, and with pushing the non-standard POV that hyperinflation occurs when there is 26% annual inflation for three years. I've (unfortunately) become well familiar with PennySeven's behaviors. The writing style and passive aggressive behavior displayed by this IP is very distinctive of PennySeven. He's been using this IP to cause disruption and push the same POV for more than a year now. For an example of this, see his very first edit on this IP [37], and his talk page ramblings. I suggest blocking this IP as it appears to be stable. LK (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Here's some possible proof in a message to me from that IP:

"My Dearest Piortau Pi-or-tau (talk), a country´s economy is in hyperinflation when the monthly inflation rate is 50% per month and stays like that for 12 months, that is, 13 000% (thirteen THOUSAND percent) per year - according to ONLY the 5 or fewer Wikipedia editors who control this article and Prof. Steve Hanke, from Johns Hopkins University. 99.999999999999999999999% of this article is based on these 5 or fewer Wikipedia editors´control of this article and Prof. Steve Hanke view. No other university in the world allows their economics professor to teach students that hyperinflation only occurs at 50% inflation per month for 12 months in a row. Luckily, the United States of America and ALL other countries in the world, follow the IASB´s definition of hyperinflation being 100% cumulative inflation over three years, that is, 26% annual inflation for three years in a row. That is forbidden to mention even with reliable sources in this article. More than 200 countries implement IFRS. Thus, more than 200 countries follow the IASB´s definition of hyperinflation. All countries in the world follow the IASB's definition. It is absolutely forbidden in this article to state this with reliable references. Absolutely.

Thanks to the absolute control that the 5 or fewer Wikipedia editors have over this article. No country in the world follows Prof. Steve Hanke´s lead of purporting that hyperinflation only occurs at 50% inflation per month for 12 months in a row. Unfortunately, the 5 or fewer Wikipedia editors who control what appears in this article, follow Prof. Hanke´s teachings. No-one else does. However, these 5 or fewer Wikipedia editors control what appears in this article about Hyperinflation. There is nothing your or I can do about it. This is how Wikipedia works.

According to the other 7 billion people who inhabit this planet earth and the International Space Station, hyperinflation in a country on Earth equals 100% cumulative inflation over three years, that is, 26% annual inflation over three years as defined by the International Accounting Standards Board in April, 1989 and accepted and acted on by all accountants world wide - on this planet earth, but not by the 5 or fewer Wikipedia editors who control what appears in this article. What 7 billion people do has no influence on this article. The 7 Billion people's view has no value in this article. What counts is ONLY what the 5 or fewer Wikipedia editors who control what appears in this article, will allow to appear in this article. So, IN FACT, Venezuela has been in hyperinflation since November 2008 or 20009, I don´t remember exactly when. It was there about. But, that is of no relevance here on this article controlled by these 5 or fewer Wikipedia editors.

So, forget about getting Venezuela mentioned in this article. Venezuela is no-where near hyperinflation according to the 5 or fewer Wikipedia editors who control this article.

They will ONLY add Venezuela to this article when Venezuela, currently at 800% hyperinflation in the real world, gets to 13 000% hyperinflation per annum.

So, please, wait till then. Then the 5 or fewer Wikipedia editors (it could even be 2 or 3) who control this article, will allow Venezuela to be added to this article.

Sorry, my dear Piortau Pi-or-tau (talk), but, this is how Wikipedia works.

I have spent about 15 years - or more - on this article, trying to get it to be an encyclopedic article about hyperinflation - to no avail. These 5 or fewer Wikipedia editors control this Hyperinflation article and will not allow it to be an encyclopedic representation of hyperinflation in the world. Period.

Just accept it. There is absolutely nothing we can do about this situation.

This is how Wikipedia works.

In principle, we have to wait for Steve Hanke to die (that could take another 30 to 40 years - or more) before this article would state what has been happening since April, 1989; namely, that all countries and governments - and all accountants in the world - follow the IASB's definition of hyperinflation as being 100% cumulative inflation over three year, or 26% annual inflation for three years in a row.

Piortau Pi-or-tau (talk), American multinationals with subsidiaries in Venezuela have been applying the IASB'S definition and rules regarding hyperinflation since 2009 in their annual reporting. That is absolutely of no interest to the 5 or fewer Wikipedia editors who control what appears in this article and Prof. Steve Hanke from Johns Hopkins University.

Reality has no place on Wikipedia. Only the view of Wikipedia editors who control articles on Wikipedia. Reliable references? Forget about it.

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Kindest regards,

89.115.121.112 (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)"

I only copy/pasted the text. Pi-or-tau (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/PennySeven/Archive&oldid=1138677321"