Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheCurrencyGuy/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
This account's only edit is to endorse TCG's now-closed move request. I suspect sockpuppet, or meatpuppet at the minimum. Thanks. NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Having voted in the original move discussion and having witnessed the highly acrimonious situation, I agree with this request. I also wish to note that on Oppa gangnam psy's SPI, User:GoodDay also expressed suspicion that Vulpelibrorum may be TCG's sock or meat puppet rather than OGP's. 68.43.231.28 (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I share some curiosity as to how Vulpelibrorum and the IPs wound up in that discussion. However, to endorse a check against TCG, I would need to suspect both. I am generally of the opinion that suspicious voting activity in a discussion is not enough to make the initiator a suspect. There was some behavior-based reasons to suspect a joe job here by Oppa gangnam psy, which was ruled out (also indirectly telling us that TCG isn't, at the very least, on the exact same IP as them). I don't, however, see any behavior-based reasons to suspect TheCurrencyGuy, other than that they stood to benefit from this canvassing; and no such reasons have been presented above. If someone would like to re-file with evidence beyond VL probably being canvassed to come support TCG, they are welcome to, but, as formulated, ; . If this was some ill-advised decision on your part, either to sock or canvass, please don't do that again; thanks.(Btw, the username means "Fox of books", apparently, for anyone else wondering.)  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 06:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
I've already blocked as an obvious sockpuppet (shows up on ANI with no prior edits to defend TheCurrencyGuy as a valuable editor in the topic of currency), but it's not self-evident whether they're a sock of TheCurrencyGuy or someone else who wanted to throw a wrench into the works. A CU can quickly put this to rest. signed,Rosguill talk 00:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, now they made a comment on their Talk page, Special:Diff/1114136852, that seems to confess that they are the same person and perhaps forgot which account they were logged in on (and then realized their mistake and self-reverted). signed,Rosguill talk 00:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

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 suspect this is a joe job as most people aren't silly enough to blatantly sock in the middle of an ANI discussion about themselves. Please compare the accounts to confirm. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * - -- RoySmith (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * good guess. Qdrx82 is ❌ to TheCurrencyGuy. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * - Please do not close this. I've just added MoonlightHowling666; I'd just go CU block any account involved, but this one seems a little controversial. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 14:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * close it now, self-admitted sock CU-blocked. I'm holding off to see what develops with TheCurrencyGuy. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 00:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Tagged, closing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
has noted that seems to be evading his block with an IP (which  has blocked). However, as evidenced here, editors encountering suspected TCG socks are required to "log their suspicions" at this page. Therefore, I would like to formally note this breach of restriction here, for the record. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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


 * Please see User talk:Nosebagbear for TomStar81's response to that provision. Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * So yeah, nothing left to do sockwise. Procedurally: Nosebagbear asked TomStar81 about this provision of the sanction a while ago, and TomStar hasn't clarified it yet. I am of the opinion that it is unenforceable, as an AN/I consensus does not have the authority to compel all editors to take a certain course of action. Furthermore, it was not part of the consensus itself, but rather added unilaterally as an implementation detail. TomStar, could you please clarify the intent of that provision?  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 18:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. I'd overlooked that thread. Welll, I have to say that as an SPI clerk I object to this provision. I could straw-poll the rest of the clerk team, but I know we all tend to be pretty opposed to anything that results in unnecessary paperwork. Would you consider striking that part of the sanction? I really see nothing that makes this case exceptional compared to any other case of sockpuppetry.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 19:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well that didn't take long. I assumed when TCG tried a different account that got caught he try it again since the editing restrictions were such that they impeded his ability to work in the area he apparently felt comfortable in. Usually people with this mindset don't take "no" for an answer, so I logged a mandatory report clause both in hopes that if he had some sense that people were going to be watching him he'd behave and to make sure that the attempt to get around provisions by socking would be noticed, listed, and acted on. Now that it appears TCG is indeff blocked for attempting to sock his way around the topic ban, we no longer need the mandatory notice, its purpose has been fulfilled. I'll redact it since any further behavioral issues past this point will ipso facto come under disruptive editing and socking and will therefore be felt with promptly. For the record, it is unenforceable, but to properly address your comment, ("I really see nothing that makes this case exceptional compared to any other case of sockpuppetry") his SPI case was closed with the sock but not the master blocked - originally. This was logged specifically to catch the second attempt which I was sure would be coming, it was just a question of when. A similar restriction was initially logged for Middayexpress (for whom the two share a similar mindset but different areas of wiki-contributions) so it seemed logical to require notification so the next attempt would be addressed and all accounts blocked. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Reclosing this. There's nothing left to do here from a SPI perspective.  This is not the correct forum for a general discussion on what can or can't be included in a sanction. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Similar to another edit from another suspected TCG sock, this IP moved the Ceausescu's from the war crimes section to the deposed leaders section of the list of people who were executed. I am reporting this IP in accordance to Special:Diff/1115248695 which requires that editors encountering TCG socks to "log their suspicions" both here and at WP:ANI. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Any sanction that editors are required to report sockpuppetry concerns to an SPI is unreasonable. Wikipedia editors cannot be required to do anything.  They can be forbidden to do things, such as to engage in sockpuppetry, or in edit-warring, or in personal attacks.  They can be encouraged to report sockpuppetry to an SPI.  This sanction should be reworded.  Robert McClenon (talk) 07:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

The "another suspected TCG sock" that I referred to was this IP. Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Same country, same mobile network, different geoloc but that doesn't mean much because mobile. One edit doesn't give us much to work with, but given that it's an undo of a TCG edit, they're either TCG or someone attempting to meatpuppet for them. I'll give them a week. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 18:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
The two users share some similarities in editing behaviour, especially over the term "r(o)uble" and our list of people who were executed.

Firstly, I started an RfC on the ruble vs. rouble spelling issue. Crucially, the RfC declared that the spelling issue "should be treated as a normal ENGVAR issue". Afterwards, CorwenAv edited pages, such as adding an edit request to Russia and directly editing Nicholas Miklouho-Maclay and Persona (satellite), to change "ruble" to "rouble". While there sometimes are evidence that the English variant used indeed calls for "rouble" - as in Talk:Russia which features a "use British English" template - sometimes there are no particular version of engvar used that would vouch for "rouble", as in the case of the Miklouho-Maclay and Persona articles. The reason why the r(o)uble changes are significant is because TCG had a predilection of using "rouble" when they were still free, and that CorwenAv often used "Edited to reflect engvar" as an edit summary for many of their changes (even those unrelated to any currency), when my RfC was largely on Engvar lines.

Another place of interest pertains to our list of people who were executed. TCG once edited the List to brand the Irish republican James McCormick as a "mass murderer" by moving him under that section of the List. Later on, CorwenAv once again moved him (Special:Diff/1133030784) to that section. Please note that while TCG had been banned from currency changes, it was their edits to the List, and my AE report on the Troubles (which involves Ireland) in response, that resulted in TCG's block. While I still believe that TCG and Corwen have similar edit patterns with regard to the List, Corwen did not move McCormick. I regret and retract this accidental mis-statement. --NotReallySoroka (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Your considerations are greatly appreciated. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 05:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It is also worthwhile that TCG and Corwen both shared a passion for mass edits. For Corwen, look at their contributions; for TCG, it is a fairly known fact to those who has dealt with them.
 * Separately, I would like to ping and, the former because I talked to her over TCG, and the latter over their involvement with TCG and me. Thanks again. NotReallySoroka (talk) 05:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Now, Corwen filed an AN/I thread against me, and I have also responded there. (Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) NotReallySoroka (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have found another similar edit to the list of people who were executed, and this time Corwen did parallel TCG's move. For fairness, I will highlight more clearly why this is so.
 * Elena and Nicolae Ceausescu were on the List under #Deposed leaders and families.
 * Then moved the Ceausescus under a "War Crimes" section, making this.
 * A few edit (wars) later, an IP that once blocked as a TCG sock per SPI moved the Ceausescus back to the "deposed leaders" section, creating this instead.
 * Scolaire undid reverted the IP, moving the Ceausescus back to the "War Crimes" section.
 * Lastly, CorwenAv reinstated the Ceausescus under the deposed leaders section.
 * NotReallySoroka (talk) 08:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The Ceausescus were deposed leaders who were executed after a showtrial. The accusations against them could be levied against many of the "deposed leaders". It is unusual that a deposed leader is killed without some sort of justification offered beyond "we want them dead". Charles I for example was officially executed for "tyranny", Mary Queen of Scots was executed for "treason", Hideki Tojo was executed on the grounds of his conduct during the Second World War. The list appears to regard the fact they were leaders as more important than the specific charge against them and that is why I moved the Ceausescus. CorwenAv (talk) 09:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Nicholas Miklouho-Maclay is tagged "use Australian English" and Persona (satellite) is tagged "use British English", therefore the allegations on these grounds are entirely baseless. I did not move McCormick as you full well know. This seems to be frivolous obsession with a single user. CorwenAv (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * For the record, CorwenAv has admitted to being TheCurrencyGuy. BilCat (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Thanks for filing this; it had slipped my mind to do so myself after Jonesey95 asked me about Corwen. I see substantial similarities, both in terms of macro behavior and micro style, but not quite enough to block on on its own. to see if CU moves things one way or the other.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 06:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Salvio giuliano 10:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Technically speaking, . Salvio giuliano 10:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Salvio. With two distinct topic areas of overlap and a fair amount of editing-style similarity, "likely" tips this well past the "plausible degree of independent coincidences" threshold.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 10:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
This IP just showed up at Talk:Pound sterling to defend "£ stg." which TCG favoured (see TCG's comment). This IP also match CorwenAv's tendency to append a ", thank you." at the end of their messages (see Special:Diff/1133124054). Thanks. NotReallySoroka (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

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

 * That looks like him. Blocked for a week.  Girth Summit  (blether)  18:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
This IP reverted my edits to the Romanian leu page that restored non-British spellings (e.g. "ruble" and "aluminum") rather than what TCG had imposed (e.g. "rouble" and "aluminium"). NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

I reverted your edit while randomly wikiwalking around the site and noticed that you had translated an EU-related topic into American English. Commonwealth English is the official form of English of the European Union, which is what made me think your edit was unwarranted. Checking your recent contrib history, it appears as though you are obsessed with this person, labelling innocuous edits as "Engvar vandalism", when likewise those were EU-related topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.163.221 (talk) 12:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked the IP for one week. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
This user just showed up at Talk:Russia to defend the spelling of "rouble", a variation of the word "ruble" that TCG had a predilection for. NotReallySoroka (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

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

 * IP hasn't edited in almost a week. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
I admit that this might be slightly contrived, but this account has matched TCG's proclivities for (the pound) sterling and stg, one of sterling's symbols. NotReallySoroka (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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


 * There also exists Special:Diff/1119979307 where Eyesnore replaced "lira" with "pound" in an Ottoman context (c.f. the edit summary of Special:Diff/1137280917 by a TCG IP: ). NotReallySoroka (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Tenure and edit count should not by themselves absolve a potential sock. NotReallySoroka (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Completely insufficient evidence to accuse a 10-year-old account with 30k edits of socking. Spicy (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course it doesn't absolve a suspected sock, but that is not what Spicy said. What they are getting at is that for accounts with very high edit counts, the probative value of individual similarities (and especially overlap) is severely diminished because with sufficient iterations, it becomes exceedingly likely that even two entirely unrelated accounts will at some point do similar things by pure random coincidence. The standard for an actionable filing is sufficient evidence to strongly indicate that similarities are unlikely to be coincidental, and when you're looking at a tenured editor, some topical overlap and a similar edit are not enough to pass that bar. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
This IP just showed up at an RM at Talk:Deutsche Mark, arguing that I (as the proposer) seek to and therefore. This sort of personal attack matches and continues the style of CorwenAv, a TCG sock (c.f. at Talk:Russia/Archive 17). NotReallySoroka (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

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

 * Blocked for 1 week, closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
This IP sounds like the 92 IP because they both participated in the same RM, arguing the same points (that I am like TCG) in close succession, and are located in the same country (Britain). If 92 is blocked, so should this IP. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

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

 * Blocked for 1 week, closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
I have these pieces of evidence to present...

Therefore, I would like Valethske CheckUsered, and 3X'ed if Valethske is indeed a TCG sock, MoonlightHowling666 being their first CU'ed sock and CorwenAv their second. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 05:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Some time ago, over at Talk:Russia/Archive 17, CorwenAv (a known TCG sock) proposed to change the infobox of our article on Russia so that the "rouble" is noted as the Russian currency instead of "ruble". The request was initially accepted by  before I overturned it as WP:BMB and noted my reversal at the talk page. Recently, Valethske performed a so-called "spelling correction" to restore "rouble".
 * 2) The recent accession of His Majesty King Charles III is accompanied with a shift in heraldry from using the St Edward's Crown to using the Tudor Crown, as seen on His Majesty's royal cypher. Soon after this announcement, a discussion arose at Talk:Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom as to whether Wikipedia should also replace the St Edward ' s Crown on images with the Tudor Crown, and TCG argued there that the Tudor Crown should be adopted "[a]s soon as the new arms" with the Tudor Crown "are revealed " . This corresponds to a recent series of Valethske mass edits (please see their contributions for evidence) where images of the Royal Arms with the St Edward ' s Crown were replaced with their Tudor Crown equivalent.
 * 3) I am unfamiliar with the Egyptian pound dispute, but it is where both TCG and Valethske disputed with MatthewS. over abbreviations for the pound.
 * Corrected links. NotReallySoroka (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * To clarify, although 3X would indeed apply in Valethske is indeed a TCG sock, it would be counted so that Corwen is deemed the first post-TCG-indef sock, and Valethske could be the second occasion that suffices to trigger 3X. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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


 * Bold move taking their complaint to ANI if indeed socking. Star   Mississippi  17:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Girth Summit Which account is the word "they" referring to when you stated that "[t]here is another account [...] that they are confirmed to"? NotReallySoroka (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * TCG is no stranger to ANI, including opening threads. Blocked and tagged. I'm leaving the CU request intact, although all accounts appear to be stale, in case CU data may reinforce my behavioral finding. Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't say it's technically ✅, but it would align with the data from the cu logs that I looked at. There is another account - - that they are confirmed to however - already blocked by another cu.   Girth Summit  (blether)  17:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * GS can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe GS is saying that Valethske and Stendec47 are confirmed to each other.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That is correct. Girth Summit  (blether)  08:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
This IP editor is mass-undoing all the "mass revert of block-evading edits by TheCurrencyGuy/CorwenAv" reverts by Tamzin, such as this: Special:Diff/1149731395. Looks like a duck to me. —  AP 499D25  (talk)  03:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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


 * Editor notified of discussion at User talk:89.240.244.75. Hopefully will include commentary to explain editing behaviors. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 03:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I just noticed some auto-reverts that I think themselves should be reverted. I probably did it in too quick succession, apologies. 89.240.244.75 (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Since I was reverted and since a superficially valid reason was given for the revert, I won't be the one to block, but given the past block of, this seems very likely TCG. . Could another admin please take a look? The /23 seems like a viable block if disruption continues from it, but probably can just block the one IP for now. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 07:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * blocked .75 per 's note. Star   Mississippi  13:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
This IP has opened an RfC with User:TheCurrencyGuy's usual arguments about the currency symbols for the Egyptian pound. CapitalSasha ~ talk 13:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

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

 * Blocked 3 days. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Per this IP's contribution, we can deduce that this is a TCG sock because...


 * The IP used "stg." as an abbreviation for sterling, Britain's currency, in an edit to an archived page . This advocacy of "stg." reminisces TCG themself (c.f. Special:Diff/1094926344), and runs contrary to Special:Diff/1141288937.


 * Their advocacy for using the Tudor Crown in the British Royal Arms (which is, by itself, not wrong), much like Valethske (see their contributions). NotReallySoroka (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

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

 * The IP edits are now too old. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
User:TheCurrencyGuy had track record of obsessive interest in pound sign, £, pound sterling and GBP. While much of it is factual and valid, they were blocked for excessively bold editing, edit warring, insistence that they were right and refusal to engage collaboratively. They also have a track record of sock-puppetting block evasion.

So here we have user:92.12.140.56 who appears on the scene with just two edits (one of which concerned GBP/£) and then decides to "correct" the MOS (Manual of Style/Dates and numbers)

and is reverted, being told to take it to the talk page. So they make a proposal to change the guidance at the talk page, which has all the signs of TCG's "fist". using a different IP (89.240.244.177) but implying continuity with 92.12.140.56, they add a further comment As is typical of TCG, without any evidence of consensus or support for their perspective, they go in and change the MOS again

I suspect that SPIs of IP addresses are rather difficult. I suggest that a WP:DUCK assessment is adequate. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

My IP address changes frequently, I do actually contribute quite a bit, but it resets every 24 hours. I edited the MOS because parts of it were poorly worded and inconsistent. I noticed that an article inconsistently used both an abbreviation and an ISO code for a currency pair, so it looked rather strange and I decided to check the MOS, I believed my conduct was appropriate because I raised the issue of the poor wording. I did not interfere with the spirit of the MOS, just the letter of it to be more consistent with usage and other parts of the MOS. 89.240.244.177 (talk) 11:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked both IPs for 3 days. Please do not request a CU when you report IPs. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Two of the five edits (1, 2) from this IP are to revert my changes on (pound) sterling-related articles that had de-emphasized the "stg" abbreviation for the currency, whereas a third edit, though constructive, involved MOS:CURRENCY much like the most recent TCG IP socks (though in a different way than previous socks). Lastly, the two remaining edits (to the ref desk and the current events portal) deprecate "GB£" in favour of "Sterling (currency)", a nomenclature that TCG had advocated for. NotReallySoroka (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Just give up with your obsessive gravedancing. You appear to be more fixated on eradicating TCG's edits than actually contributing any constructive material. For months you have done almost nothing but this. If you actually cared about content you yourself would have taken out "GB£" because it is fictitious (and would also have pulled up a certain user sitting on Egyptian pound for their disruptive editing practices). This behaviour is not helpful to anybody. No wonder TCG sockpuppets with how brazen you seem to be in simply destroying everything they ever did than constructing an encyclopaedia. You have been warned about this before. Of the 15 reports filed against TCG, 13 were filed by you. 80.41.168.173 (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @NotReallySoroka, please note to @Bbb23's remarks on the first case, do not report it in CU. If possible, report to AIV for such case (as IP can't be considered under SPI due to technical reason) NFRAPC (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your comment. NRS did not request a CU, and there's nothing wrong with filing at SPI rather than AIV. I don't understand what you mean by "IP can't be considered under SPI due to technical reason".--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well I don't understand the difference between the remarks you gave in first case and this case. Sorry I'm new so no knowledge about SPI. NFRAPC (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * All I said before was that when filing a report about an IP, one should not request a CU, and NRS heeded that comment in this report. The reason for not requesting a CU is not "technical" but for privacy reasons as CheckUsers will not disclose a named account's IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , I see the reason for the confusion: "Please do not request a checkuser" does not mean "Please do not open a sockpuppet investigation". When you open a sockpuppet investigation, you have the additional option of requesting a technical check, and that won't be publicly performed on IP addresses. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked IP 3 days, closing. Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
This newcomer to Wikipedia...


 * 1) Is from the same general area as another IP previously identified as a TCG sock (c.f. Special:Contributions/80.41.168.173)
 * 2) Immediately took an interest in both currency (see this IP's first two edits) and Ireland (see Special:Diff/1153629843 and this AE request against TCG)
 * 3) Denounced IDONTLIKEIT as "euphemisms" (see this reverted unblock request from a TCG sock featuring the notion of "lies and untruths" as well as an intention to sock) NotReallySoroka (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

I concur per WP:duck. Just block. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
for 3 days as a WP:DUCK. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
At that point, I decided to pause the edit war and seek SPI intervention. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) With this edit, previous TCG sockpuppet user:80.41.168.104 edited Pimlico, riding his favourite hobbyhorse. Although the edit was uncontroversial (to give the current equivalent of a 1623 price), I reverted it per WP:BMB, "revert all edits, good or bad". I identified this article from the list of sockpuppet edits.
 * 2) With this edit, user:92.21.252.186 (a new IP) reverted (!) my deletion, reinstating the banned editor's change.
 * 3) Seeing a rather obvious WP:DUCK, I reverted again. I don't believe that there are credible grounds to wp:AGF: new IPs are not that familiar with Wikipedia methods.
 * 4) With this edit, I revised the article to add a footnote giving the current price equivalence. I let the body text stand unchanged.
 * 5) With this edit, 92.21.252.186 changed both the body text and the footnote to conform with his hobbyhorse on how £sd amounts should be given.
 * 6) With this edit, I reverted with the edit summary Banned still means banned.
 * 7) With this edit], 92.21.252.186 counter-reverted, claiming in his edit summary to be a different editor.

Comments by other users

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


 * I semi'ed Pimlico to stop the whack a mole for a few days. Star   Mississippi  03:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * /22 CIDR range blocked one week by for being an "LTA", having made personal attacks against editors including myself. NotReallySoroka (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * IP has been blocked, Pimlico has been protected, nothing left to do - closing.  Girth Summit  (blether)  14:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
A few days ago, I reverted CorwenAv's edits to our page on the economic impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, clearly citing WP:BMB in my edit summary. However, this IP reinstated Corwen's edits, understandably stating that the page is tagged "Use British English". Although the edit is not unconstructive per se, the fact that this IP was so prompt to reinstate edits from a TCG sock (Corwen), and the fact that this IP geo-locates to a similar place as previous TCG IP socks (c.f. 80.41.168.104) means that it is very likely that we got another TCG sock on our hands. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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


 * IP blocked by for one month due to block evasion. NotReallySoroka (talk) 03:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Yep. Closing.  Courcelles (talk) 11:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Although this IP has only made one edit thus far, it contains the quintessentially TCG predilection for "rouble". Note that another TCG IP sock has also made an extremely similar edit to the same page before. NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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


 * Geolocation is not the same as previous sockpuppet accounts; further evidence may be needed. Edited to add: Never mind, I see the differences to which you referred above. Pretty clear link to previous TCG sockpuppet. Bgsu98   (Talk)  02:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * One edit 4 days ago. Closing with no action. Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
This IP defended Christian Gregory (see SPI above) using the page (i.e. this one) and tactics typical of IPs that turn out to be TCG socks. NotReallySoroka (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Please see Special:Diff/1152313372/1152324703, where a TCG IP (unsuccessfully) defend themselves by using a similar tactic as this IP here. NotReallySoroka (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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


 * Not every person who defends an accused user is the accused. I am not quite sure what you are trying to do beyond stirring up trouble. You seem to have an obsession with a single banned user and accuse every person who makes an even vaguely similar edit of being them. I would also dispute your claims that they are being "esoteric", since it indicates you have little knowledge of the subject and are more concerned with upsetting TCG than constructing an encyclopedia. 92.30.3.47 (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Once is an accident, twice a coincidence, three times a pattern. Playing the same "disruption" or "obsession" cards as past TCG socks would only harm your case. Also, please refrain from personally attacking my knowledge as regards currency. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your filing of vexatious reports against hapless veteran editors simply because you are obsessed with upsetting one banned user is not helping your case. 92.30.3.47 (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It really seems unlikely that a long-term account like the one you originally cited would be a sockpuppet account, but I'd bet anything this IP editor for sure is TCG. No question in my mind. Bgsu98   (Talk)  22:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked IP for one week without TPA. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Both users (TCG IP sock; CG) have a predilection to use esoteric denotations for sums of money in pre-decimal (pound) sterling, as well as to use "stg" as a symbol for sterling.

For instance, in the edit pair above, the IP used "£1,151-15s-0d" to denote the sum of 1151 pounds and 15 shillings sterling, whereas CG used "£7-10-6" to denote the sum of seven pounds, ten shillings, and six pence sterling. Note that how in both cases, a hyphen is used to separate pound from shilling, and shilling from penny.

Moreover, CG has often concluded their edit summaries with a period (c.f. Special:Diff/1154269666). So did Valethske when they "[u]pdated [the British Royal Arms] to the Tudor Crown version."

Given that Valethske - a CU'ed TCG sock - is blocked within 3 months, we should be able to obtain CU data to see whether CG and Valethske (and therefore TCG) are connected. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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


 * More evidence:
 * TCG used the notation "1s.8d." to denominate (one) shilling and (eight) pence, whereas CG used the same notation ("6s.8d.").
 * Here did CG use "stg" to denote sterling.
 * NotReallySoroka (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed link. Also note that in the "Here did CG..." edit, that CG also used TCG's notation for pre-decimal sterling; "13s.4d." --NotReallySoroka (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Simply because two users used the same (valid) notation is completely insufficient evidence to accuse a veteran account. You have done this before (see: Sockpuppet_investigations/TheCurrencyGuy/Archive). This appears to be nothing more than a total coincidence and is WP:DISRUPTIVE editing bordering on WP:VANDALISM. 92.30.3.47 (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is an utterly ludicrous SPI filing - I don't see any grounds to run a checkuser here. The account above is obviously not TheCurrencyGuy - this should be blindingly obvious to anyone with any experience investigating sockpuppetry. The currency guy joined in 2022, this account started editing in 2006, 15 years earlier. The edit summaries, style of writing and content of the edits are completely different - just look at some of the talk page comments from both accounts - they are completely different in tone, content and style . Christian Gregory incorrectly uses the lira symbol (₤) in their edits, instead of the pound symbol (£), given TheCurrencyGuy's focus on "correctness" I cannot believe they would make that kind of mistake. The entire basis for this report is that after 15 years they have made three edits adding old style British currencies to articles, and in doing so they used the same, technically correct, formatting as TheCurrencyGuy? This is now the second time NotReallySoroka has accused a long term, established editor of being a sock of TheCurrencyGuy with no actual evidence - I am still of the opinion that NotReallySoroka lacks the competence to be involving themselves in these areas of the project. It is also completely inappropriate for NotReallySoroka to be reverting Christian Gregory's edits on the basis of this report . 192.76.8.64 (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Not seeing a case here. By this evidence, almost any account editing about pre-decimal Sterling could be accused of being a sock. If there’s a more compelling case, please make it. Courcelles (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Closing without action. I agree with IP 192.76 that this filing has zero merit. this is the second time you have made a filing on this SPI accusing a long-standing editor of being a TCG sock with scant evidence (previous filing for reference). Blablubbs said there that the standard for an actionable filing is sufficient evidence to strongly indicate that similarities are unlikely to be coincidental - this filing is nowhere close to that, even for a user with only ~450 edits, particularly given the differences that IP 192 has pointed out. Might I suggest giving this SPI case a rest for a while? I worry that your zeal to find socks and lack of solid experience in the area is leading you to make sub-par filings.  firefly  ( t · c ) 13:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
This IP reinstated TCG's ruble-to-rouble changes after I reverted them (on shaky grounds) some time ago. Also, this IP has a similar geolocation as 92.21.252.186, a previous TCG sock. NotReallySoroka (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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


 * Fixed links. NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * No., give it a rest. Not everybody who makes this spelling change is a TCG sock. You are clearly not listening to what others have said here. If I see another poorly-founded accusation from you that somebody is TCG, you will no longer be welcome to make reports at this SPI. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
User:TheCurrencyGuy has an obsession with (among other trivia) the abbreviation "STG" (an historic abbreviation for Pound sterling, an obsolescent style replaced since 1973 by GBP but still appears occasionally in specialist banking. For more background, see talk:Pound sterling. ) See also Sockpuppet investigations/TheCurrencyGuy/Archive.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pound_sterling&diff=1167948724&oldid=1167585548 (OurangMedan is a single-purpose account.)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pound_sterling&diff=1167380554&oldid=1165212887 89.242.189.146 another SPA
 * See User talk:89.242.188.113. None of the edits from this account are disruptive but same Class B network and same interest. Would ignore otherwise.
 * As may be seen from the archive of investigations into the sockmaster, he has been learning from his mistakes and has become much better at avoiding trip-wires. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

This feels like an inquisition. Accusing someone of being a sockpuppet because you don't like what they have to say no matter how much evidence they bring to the table is not constructive. It feels as though you are trying to railroad through your personal preferences through blunt force because the evidence does not support you. You are making a stark assertion with no actual sources supporting you, and you seem to be using this as a last resort. OurangMedan (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The IP's do geolocate to the same area in the U.K. as previous confirmed sockpuppets as TheCurrencyGuy. Bgsu98  (Talk)  22:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I doubt anything I can say in my defence will do any good. I made an account because I noticed some poorly formatted pages, and I'm already being crushed because I trod on the toes of a concern troll and hit on one of his trigger issues. OurangMedan (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I only commented on the IP's, not you. Now, if you are saying that you and the IP editors are one and the same, then that will save us a lot of time and effort here. Bgsu98   (Talk)  23:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - I've blocked 89.242.188.113 for one week. 89.242.189.146 made only a few edits a few days ago, so no action. I'm not sufficiently convinced about OurangMedan. Other than the edits directly regarding currency, none of their edits is typical of this master, from what I can see, so I'm requesting CU. There's at least one suspected puppet that is not stale. Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * They’re on the same ISP and geolocation as that suspected sock. I’ll call it possilikely technically and let you, @Bbb23 or another clerk do a behavioral analysis. Courcelles (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Further analysis? I think this has become a lot clearer since I ran the check. Blocked and tagged as suspected. Courcelles (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Serial currency-related edits. Possible ban evasion suspected due to the pattern of edits. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 21:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

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

 * Blocked and tagged the named account. Blocked the IP range for one month. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)