Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PennySeven

PennySeven

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

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PennySeven/Archive.

21 May 2014

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

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

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

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:[1] NotAGroup's and MonteDaCunca's multiple edits to the hyperinflation article confirms Penny Seven's obsession with it. See [2] and [3]. 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:[4] Compare that wall of text with this one [5] 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)

Addition: This edit that mentions the "Hanke-Krus Hyperinflation Table"[6] 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)

Comments by other users

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Lawrenckoo, Please explain why you deleted the following, verbatim, Deloitte (a Big Four audit firm) referenced content 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

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 in mass, including validly referenced, in this case, a verbatim quote. 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)

---