Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ali Mohammad Khilji.

Notifying you due to your prior investigation of related case.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Came up negative according to you -- MastCell dropped in and says he intends to block Roccodrift as a "duck" sock anyways - but there was no such evidence provided, and I found minimal overlap between Belchfire and Roccodrift at all, and no sign that they would use exotic measures which MrX says are trivial to do - thus no evidence other than MC knowing he must be a sock of someone. If the criterion for blocking as a sock is simply finding an admin to say "it is a sock" after a CU occurred and others demurred on such a finding, SPI is pretty useless. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Collect, I never said it was negative. I said I saw no sleepers, and as I usually put, but neglected this time is "No immediate sleepers". CU is not magic pixie dust, and it's not 100% conclusive. It is only a tool that can assist with finding socks. Now there is also a second admin who has came in and concurred with MastCell's assessment. As I checkuser, I try and remain as an objective party and only wear one hat at a time, except in stupidly obvious cases, or time sensitive cases, and therefore will not be commenting on the case. You are welcome to get a third opinion though. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Mac Pro, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I know this is ancient history, but some of these old declines are just coming to light as a result of CSD G13 reviews. Just in case you are still declining articles on the same basis, I would like to point out to you that the comment in this decline is completely incorrect. Non-English sources are perfectly acceptable for both verification and establishing notability, see WP:NONENG. Your decline merely resulted in an article being posted to mainspace without any sources at all, ie, an even worse article. SpinningSpark 20:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Ya...at four years ago almost, I can say I didn't know that many policies on WP and I'm well aware of the current policy. I apologize for the even worse article making it out to the mainspace, but I'm completely not involved in AFC at this time, and have been out of it for a darn long time. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 21:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I see you blocked Unfitlouie (talk · contribs) after running a CU. There's an SPI open about him: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Notabede. Can you comment there about Notabede (talk · contribs)? If my block was in error, I should unblock him. Toddst1 (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

With the case closed, I'll just comment here. As I remember, I found 4 socks on that check, and these are the same people. The had been blocked several times for edit warring over a few accounts, but again it's all off of memory. I don't see any issue (though I haven't looked into it) with your block. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 21:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Ahoy there DeltaQuad.

I don't know if you're aware of this but apparently your bot seems to have shut down on it's duty at WP:UAA/BOT? There's a discussion about it at the bot owners noticeboard.

Y'all take care now. MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 02:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives/2014. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 22:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC). 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.

A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)