Hi, you were recently involved in a CU here. I think it is possible that they have returned as Tākatnāth Siddha, even though that contributor has only made one edit. I don't think a single-edit contributor can be said to pass the duck test but the reinstatement of Buddhakahika's preferred version of Dalit saints of Hinduism is mightily odd. Given that it takes ages to clean up after this sock once they get going, is it worth running a CU now and nip any problems in the bud(dha)? - Sitush (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This is definitely quacking loudly per the previous blocked user, similar high thousand character changes to the article, and the naming matching a previous sock. No sleepers at this time. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks very much for looking at this and blocking. - Sitush (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm sorry if my SPI post did not make sense. The previous socks of Castleking1440 used the same Elance account, to solicit jobs for paid editing. Each sock posted a few unrelated minor edits, then created a spammy article or added promotional material to an article. The article was commissioned on Elance, to that same account. This sock, CoolHalloween, posted a few unrelated minor edits, then added promotional material to an article. In this case, the added material did not even match the sources. In this case, the Elance job was "I would like to have a wikipedia post written for Hunter Industries, including it's segments of FX Luminaire, Hunter Golf, and Hunter Custom Molding. It should be a minimum of 500 words and have a minimum of 5 citations." So what CoolHalloween did was add material about FX Luminaire, Hunter Golf, and Hunter Custom Molding, with several new citations.

I have not included a link to the Elance job, although Pharoah of the Wizards did. It's right there on the SPI page.

Note that I am not saying "Someone being paid to edit on behalf of a banned user." It's exactly the opposite of that. Someone is paying a blocked user, CastleKing1440. To evade the block, CastleKing1440 is using multiple accounts. I posted this to SPI because of the sockpuppetry, and that is why I requested CU.

Please let me know if I can clarify further. Logical Cowboy (talk) 06:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification, though I do really need to head off for the night so i'll look at it some time tomorrow. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, that would be great. This is different from some other recent cases. It's just one guy with multiple accounts--not a meat puppet farm (which I agree could not be detected with CU). Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't have anything to go on, but when I spotted the username Potassium.chloride it dinged in my sleepy brain as being the sort of username the sockfarm of Echigo mole is known for. Thought I'd toss it your way to see if there's any smoke there or if I just need to go to bed... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

It rings a bell somewhere, but I don't think Echigo mole is the source of it...i'll keep thinking about it and get back to you if I remember something. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you comment at the unblock request here? I presume this is a sock of similar named socks at Lumberton, Texas, but there was no indication in the block notice or tags on the page. I'm stalled since this is a clearly marked checkuser block. Kuru (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Last time it was mentioned above I found some sort of relation between Storm8181, Storm8282 and Stormfront81. That relation now...I can't confirm, but I am pretty darn sure of the connection, especially with the article overlap and name overlap. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Si. Closed it out. No doubt it will resurface. Kuru (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Yup, Buddhakahika is back - see Messenger of Truthfulness and 199.243.220.218. Hopefully, this is self-evident. I'm wondering whether we might need to salt some of the previously deleted articles. I'm not keen on protecting the remainder because the key ones act as an alarm bell - they give us a warning that they may be up to their old tricks in less obvious places. - Sitush (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

All now resolved. - Sitush (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives/2013. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

You can safely ignore it, it's all resolved now. Or read it if you want to see a comedy of errors. I just got a bit flustered by this and felt email was a safer and potentially faster way of getting the situation resolved. Sailsbystars (talk) 06:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Can this article be semi-protected and pending changes simultaneously? --George Ho (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Anon edits would still be blocked if we put that on, so I'm not sure I see the point. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

When the semi-protection expires, IPs will be allowed to edit. However, some would cause trouble afterwards. There are other pages pending changes and semi-protected simultaneously. Even when the semi-protection ends, the indef. PC would go on. George Ho (talk) 05:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I have a feeling though that if the IPs are vandalizing it again, it's going to be semi'd again. Beyond that indef'ing PC on the article seems preemptive and counter-productive if the vandalism does eventually go down. The use of PC (as from the policy page) is meant to supplement semi-protection, not take over it's job. I think we can just extend the edit protection if it becomes an issue in the future. At least that is my two cents. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

In regard to this: "No comment with respect to IP address(es)" at this SPI:[1], I have to ask why no comment about the IPs? Inconclusive or something else? Thanks, -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Privacy policy and/or CU policy, I will explain it more tomorrow as i'm running out the door now. If another CU talkpage stalker wants to explain, they can. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem waiting until tomorrow when you have more time. But now my curiosity is piqued, so if anyone else wants to answer, have at it! -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the long delay. I am not allowed to comment on the IP addresses and relation to any accounts per The Privacy Policy, section 7 which covers the access to and release of personally identifiable information. It explains better than I can, so I will let it do the explaining. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked Progsofts for spam, and in the course of this noticed that WikiDan61 had queried why they seemed to be talking about two different companies in the article. I looked into this, and found that they had used a page created by Muhammadbabarzaman (who is blocked as a Morning277 sock) as a template for starting their new article. The earlier page (Tsebo Outsourcing Group) was deleted in July. The Progsofts one was only created in November. To my mind, this says that they are an M277 sock too as they must have had a copy of the article to hand after it was deleted (and the company that was the subject fits their low notability zone too). What is the position about this currently? Do we just leave it as an SOA block, or should it be labelled as a sock? (I've not put links here to avoid pinging...) Peridon (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

@Peridon: (ping because of my delay in responding) You are completely able to mark it as a sock on a behavoiral basis if you believe it is a sock. The restrictions are only in regards to the SPI case because we were getting tons of meatpuppet or minimal evidence check requests, which encourages and pushes the line in which evidence is needed for a checkuser, which is completely inappropriate in my opinion. Also the length of the millions of reports that were infuxing were way beyond what we could handle. It is not stopping anyone from taking action if they feel that there is still some relevant action to take. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll label Progsofts. Peridon (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It would be a fair bet that Rabbit Massacre (talk · contribs) is the same guy as the one you indef'd, Request Denied Forever (talk · contribs). Who the sockmaster is, I have no clue. I also have no recollection of Werieth (talk · contribs), but after a while the trolls all tend to fall under the same bridge. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

 Confirmed, and blocked. I personally recommend you just ignore any requests from small edit accounts that claim something needs to be done about someone, and report it forward to a CU. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Will do. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

If you have any specific questions for me that are personal you may email them to me from my account. I'd be happy to answer generic questions at the SPI itself. GraniteSand (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

If you're still involved with the SPI can I get an estimate on when you'll have enough information to be satisfied? If not can I get any estimate passed onto you via other channels? Thank you. GraniteSand (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)