TheCurrencyGuy

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

01 July 2022

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)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

05 October 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

I've already blocked Qdrx82 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

12 November 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Mellk has noted that TheCurrencyGuy seems to be evading his block with an IP (which Cullen328 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)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

12 November 2022

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

12 January 2023

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)[reply]

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

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 Tamzin and John Maynard Friedman, 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)[reply]
Now, Corwen filed an AN/I thread against me, and I have also responded there. (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Uncalled for accusations and long term obsession by NotReallySoroka) NotReallySoroka (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
  1. Elena and Nicolae Ceausescu were on the List under #Deposed leaders and families.
  2. Then Scolaire moved the Ceausescus under a "War Crimes" section, making this.
  3. A few edit (wars) later, an IP that Tamzin once blocked as a TCG sock per SPI moved the Ceausescus back to the "deposed leaders" section, creating this instead.
  4. Scolaire undid reverted the IP, moving the Ceausescus back to the "War Crimes" section.
  5. Lastly, CorwenAv reinstated the Ceausescus under the deposed leaders section.
NotReallySoroka (talk) 08:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

17 January 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

This IP just showed up at Talk:Pound sterling to defend "£ stg." which TCG favoured (see TCG's "GB£" does not exist in any valid source anywhere, that is why I took it out 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)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

04 February 2023

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

08 February 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

This user just showed up at Talk:Russia#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2023 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)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

10 March 2023

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)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

15 March 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

This IP just showed up at an RM at Talk:Deutsche Mark, arguing that I (as the proposer) seek to get the word "deutschmark" deprecated and therefore rather totalitarian and unconstructive. This sort of personal attack matches and continues the style of CorwenAv, a TCG sock (c.f. A certain user seems intent on imposing a single spelling across the website despite obvious evidence that it is a dialectical distinction at Talk:Russia/Archive 17#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2023). NotReallySoroka (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

16 March 2023

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)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

13 April 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

I have these pieces of evidence to present...

  1. Some time ago, over at Talk:Russia/Archive 17#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2023, 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 Mzajac 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#Tudor crown 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.

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)[reply]

Corrected links. NotReallySoroka (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

14 April 2023

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)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

22 April 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

This IP has opened an RfC [1] with User:TheCurrencyGuy's usual arguments about the currency symbols for the Egyptian pound. CapitalSasha ~ talk 13:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

22 April 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

26 April 2023

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 (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Currencies and monetary values)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

29 April 2023

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@NFRAPC: 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@NFRAPC: 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)[reply]
NFRAPC, 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)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

08 May 2023

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)[reply]

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

 IP blocked for 3 days as a WP:DUCK. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09 May 2023

Suspected sockpuppets


  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.

At that point, I decided to pause the edit war and seek SPI intervention. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

13 May 2023

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)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

16 May 2023

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)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

20 May 2023

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

20 May 2023

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)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

24 May 2023

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)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

30 July 2023

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#STG yet again: Bold, revert, discuss. ) See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheCurrencyGuy/Archive.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

12 April 2024

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)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

More