Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nicolaas Smith/Archive

{{SPIcat}}

• {{checkuser|1=PennySeven}}

Nicolaas Smith was blocked for sockpuppetry. Before that, he and his various socks were attempting to modify certain economics articles to contain material from his blog. PennySeven was tentatively identified as Nicolaas Smith back in March, but the involved editors decided to let him try to turn over a new leaf with the new identity. (PennySeven seems to have accepted the identification as correct in the linked section above.) However, over the past couple of days, PennySeven has edited disruptively, and after being blocked, claims to be attempting to delete the PennySeven identity and edit only as an IP. Since it seems to me that he's continuing to act in the same way he did before he was blocked, I think he should be added to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nicolaas Smith and blocked accordingly.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

;Response to PeterSymonds

:If community consensus is to let indef-blocked Nicolaas Smith start over with a single, non-sockpuppeting account, then I guess this can be closed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

See Defending yourself against claims.

Fact: I use one account. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOCK]

PennySeven (talk) 09:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have now decided not to leave. I am not interested in deleting the user name PennySeven any more and editing with my IP address. I quite like the name PennySeven. I will stay on Wikipedia ONLY as PennySeven.

Official announcement: I have decided to stay on ONLY as PennySeven and NOT start editing with my IP address.

PennySeven (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Fact: I only use one account. See, I do not need more than one account. You can work out for yourself why. I know you know the answer.

PennySeven (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I don´t think this sockpuppet thing will get very far. I only use one account. So, it is a bit of a waste of time on all your parts, don´t you think? Sorry :-) As I say, I don´t need two accounts. I know what I am talking about. No second account needed to back me up. Facts and reliable Wikipedia policy compliant third party references are enough. No sockpuppets needed here. Sorry, again! :-)

PennySeven (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this sockpuppet thing won´t get anywhere, since there are no other accounts being used by me. If it is not there, it´s not there and you cannot find it, isn´t it?

So, sorry, this sockpuppet thing is a waste of time. I´m so sorry about it! :-)

Otherwise, have a nice week-end all of you lovely people. Lovely Wikipedians! Lots of hugs and kisses. Especially a big hug and kiss each to SarekOfVulcan and Lawrencenkhoo!! :-)

PennySeven (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, another check you can do is the IP check. I´m sure you know where to go to do that. I do not have to supply you with the link.

You will come short there too. Sorry, bad luck for you all this time round. :-)

You are all nice people actually and we are all building Wikipedia together. I am not like you, :-) and you are not like me :-) But, all in all, Wikipedia will gain in the end. :-)

As I say, sorry about this particular sockpuppet thing. No luck here for you. But, don´t worry, I know there are many other sockpuppets. If you want, I can go sockpuppet hunting with you. What do you say? That would be fun. Let me see if I can work out how to corner a sockpuppet. Then I will report it here. What do you say? Great idea, isn´t it!! :-)

On a serious note: Forget it, I am not a sockpuppet or a sockpuppeteer. You are barking up the wrong tree.

Have a nice weekend,

PennySeven (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, hello, hello, all you lovely Wikipedian Special Sock Puppet Investigators. How are you wonderful people today? Having a nice weekend? I hope so.

For your special entertainment:

Please visit the PennySeven user page for a great sock puppet show, specially organized for the members of the sock puppet investigation of the dastourdly Sock Puppet PennySeven.

PennySeven (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think SPI is the right place for this, unless you think that P7 has created other socks. Evidence from Nicolaas Smith has been stale for a while and evidently the connection is admitted. What do you want done? Protonk (talk) 05:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

:I'm basically looking for confirmation that the dots were properly connected. If so, I think that P7 should be blocked in turn, and their userpage should be restored and tagged. I don't think that letting him slip away to edit as an IP as he claims at Wikipedia:Help desk#How do I get my user page and user talk page deleted? is the correct thing to do. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

:I also think that Smith's user page should be restored. I'm not quite sure why it was deleted before...

:: From WP:RTV: The "right to vanish" is not a "right to a fresh start" under a new identity. It seems like P7 is attempting to erase his history and come back as a new user to the same pages and edit in the same way. It should be made clear to him that this is not allowed. It's ok to change to use a new username permanently, as long as the connection between the new and old usernames are made clear. New users are (and should be) allowed more leeway than old users. A user should never pretend to be a new user; that is sock puppetry. P7 has essentially declared his intention to do exactly that, therefore, this post is appropriate. LK (talk) 12:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

:::Personally, I would support P7's decision to start fresh, but s/he'd have to do exactly that; start fresh. If they come back under a different moniker and act in exactly the same fashion, things would quickly degenerate to the current state of things.

:::LK; as long as only one account was being used, I think that would be ok. If P7 resumes editing all of a sudden under this account, then we'd have to take a deeper look into things. Master of Puppets 04:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

: I would support a fresh start but looking through the history of the user I would advise that an admin keeps an eye on them. If there is so much of an incling by the admin that the user is socking or is attempting to do anything that is against policy then I wouldnt hesitate to Support a indef block. Corruptcopper (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Is there anything left for us to do here? PeterSymonds (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Okay, thanks. I'll leave this open for another 24 hours to allow comment, after which I'll probably close it. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

{{SPIclose|archive}}

----{{SPIarchive notice|Nicolaas Smith}}

{{SPIcat}}

• {{checkuser|1=PennySeven}}

Transparently the same user. Same signature method (carriage return), same single-topic focus. Same massive disruption. Needs a specific determination, as user would be invalid to sign some stupid recall petition if they were, in fact, an obviously transparent sock of this indef blocked user. Hipocrite (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

RE Atma: The prior report was closed without action as there was no reason to take action - the user was granted a fresh start and urged to stay away from the problem areas. However, a fresh start does not free them from the fact that they were, right up untill the fresh start, blocked for sockpuppetry. I don't see how they can be granted a fresh start yet continue to deny they were socking. If the old report closed as verifying the sockpuppetry, that fine - close this one, and make that one clear that the user was sockpuppeting and was granted clemency. And then remove their name from the recall request. Hipocrite (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

See Defending yourself against claims.

I use one account: PennySeven PennySeven (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

See my defence above in this same investigation. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nicolaas_Smith/Archive#Comments_by_accused_parties] This is getting boring now :-) PennySeven (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

:Hipocrite, you must be careful :-) SarekOfVulcan may block you like he blocked me for "missing the point". You certainly are "missing the point" here :-) PennySeven (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

::No personal attack please Hipocrite. What massive disruptions? WP:NPAPennySeven (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sock Puppetry in a nutshell:

"The general rule is one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block. Do not ask your friends to create accounts to support you." PennySeven (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the conclusion of the previous investigation a day or two ago: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nicolaas_Smith/Archive#Conclusions]PennySeven (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This report should be rejected. Not that I condone anything that PennySeven has done, to be honest I haven't even looked. If they are being disruptive, then seek a block at WP:AIV or WP:ANI. But a report was already filed on this issue and closed, with no action taken, just days ago. This report seems rather pointy to me, clearly with no new evidence presented there's nothing to be done. -- Atama頭 20:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• {{User|Antihase}} just showed up, and its first four edits were to blank its own user and talk pages, and to blank User:Nicolaas Smith. Note {{diff|User:Nicolaas Smith|prev|322911035|this edit}}, where they set the text of the userpage to "Nicolaas Smith", as {{diff|User:PennySeven|prev|322909061|PennySeven has just done to their own page}}. In fact, all of Antihase's contributions at this point fit nicely into a hole in PennySeven's edits, and strongly resemble those edits. If PennySeven is indeed creating multiple accounts, then they are violating the consensus that allowed them to start over with a single account.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• While I am almost always in favor of giving users another chance, the Antihase account raises a red flag for me. When I saw the edits Sarek lists, my first thought was that we had a sockpuppet here. And the edits by Antihase have yet to be constructive. -- llywrch (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If the community decided to give this person another chance, then I do not see how this is an issue of abusive sock puppetry. If a block is still desired because of disruption, then it's of my opinion that it be pursued outside of SPI. MuZemike 02:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

{{clerk-note}} As nobody else seems to comment, I'm marking this as closed with no action taken. MuZemike 17:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

{{SPIclose|archive}}

----

{{SPIcat}}

• {{checkuser|1=Mr Trichet}}

Mr Trichet {{diff|User:PennySeven|prev|363416452|blanked}} a sockpuppet notice on {{user|PennySeven}}'s userpage -- PennySeven is a known sock of Nicolaas Smith -- and replaced it with a welcome notice. Interesting place for a welcome, considering P7 has been blocked for 2 months... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

See Defending yourself against claims.

• I have to say {{duck}} considering all of his recent contributions have been to replace sock tags with welcome notices on the userpages of various socks belonging to the same sockmaster. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

:{{Admin-note}} Blocked. I'm not merging this with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PennySeven since the recent CU didn't pop this name up. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

{{SPIclose|archive}}

----

{{SPIcat}}

• {{checkuser|1=PennySeven}}
• {{checkuser|1=Misessus}}

Slightly different areas of discussion within Inflation, but much the same debating and editing style. I would like checkuser to confirm this, because the duck test isn't conclusive, in my opinion. (Nicolaas Smith may be stale, but PennySeven is a known sock of theirs.)SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

See Defending yourself against claims.

• {{Decline}} - Actually, all accounts are stale (except the newest). This is going to have to go off behavioral evidence alone. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

:I'm going to mark this for close. I would like to note an interesting factor that indicates this account may need close monitoring. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LetThemMintPaper&diff=prev&oldid=239879198 This edit] from 2008 is worrying, but the recent checks of KiK have not turned up a connection to this account. Further suspected socking should be reported here. TNXMan 16:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

----

{{SPIcat}}

• {{checkuser|1=DoubleScotchOnTheRocks}}

User's first two edits were to bluelink their user and talk pages, a habit of Nicolaas'/PennySeven's socks. Most recent edit today related to destruction of purchasing power "caused by" accounting methods, which is a long-term obsession of this sock drawer. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

See Defending yourself against claims.

The account is blocked and I saw no sleepers. TNXMan 15:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

----