Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThinkEnemies/Archive

Evidence submitted by Jack Merridew
It's pretty obviously the same troll. This is one of the usuals; he knows me and my history (one of the revdel'd edit summaries on soapy's talk). Jack Merridew 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The edit summary here (I'm actually you. Well, used to be before you killed the crew. They really didn't think controlled all our socks alone) would be a reference to the actions of User:Senang Hati (impersonator), which was renamed from User:Senang Hati, which used to be mine, was hijacked, and is back to being mine post-move to ...Impersonator. All boils down to this being Grawp, or a Grawp wanna-b/tard. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Or it's just Drew ;) Jack Merridew 00:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * LULWUT? (re removed stuff)

Consider: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of R:128.40.76.3 and edits from that cloud such as this; #anchor

I'll have a look at whatever else his offered socks have gotten up to. dickery, I'm sure. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 06:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Doesn't seem that I was on the right track, above. FWIW, most of what ThinkEnemies, MookieG, and PartyJoe seem to tend to edit are not areas I've edited in at all. It does remind me of:
 * Requests for arbitration/Libertas, which I presented evidence in:
 * Requests for arbitration/Libertas/Evidence

And MookieG, and PartyJoe are not blocked at the moment... Thanks, Jack Merridew 12:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with your evidence. However, I don't think MookieG and PartyJoe will get blocked yet, since they have not edited in a long while, compared to the other sockpuppets. If administration is done, why not close this SPI case? / Hey Mid  (contributions) 12:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They're not blocked because a administrator hasn't reviewed the findings and decided on an action yet. This case is not archived because it's not closed yet. Please avoid commenting on SPI pages like this when you do not understand how the procedure works. Address your questions somewhere else. --Deskana (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand. The Davenbella account was an obvious impersonator of my old account, as were several others. The bottom three I've never seen and Think Enemies seems the "mainest" of them. I can't help but think that I got on this person's radar by editing a few of the articles related to the current Climate Change case; Global Warming, for example; all in just the last some days. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
–MuZemike 01:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

✅ that the following accounts are operated by the same person: These results were checked on and agreed by Brandon. --Deskana (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All blocked. I have tagged them all as socks of ThinkEnemies, as that is the oldest account found. The case would probably need to be moved there. TN X Man  12:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * originally opened at Sockpuppet investigations/I dropped the soap SpitfireTally-ho! 12:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

ThinkEnemies has now provided a plausible (and unverifiable) explanation for the technical data we have. Given the situation as a whole, and given his explanation, I have unblocked his account. Any further suspicious activity of any kind will result in an immidiate and indefinite block. --Deskana (talk) 07:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)