Misplaced Pages

:Requests for checkuser/Case/Samiharris: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser | Case Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:12, 6 February 2008 editLar (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators29,160 edits →Samiharris: meh← Previous edit Revision as of 19:17, 6 February 2008 edit undoThatcher (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,287 edits →Samiharris: confirmedNext edit →
Line 39: Line 39:
*** I see at least one reason: ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC) *** I see at least one reason: ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
****I've asked Jpgordon to share the information he gathered, which led him to conclude that Palabrazo was a sock, with me. And I'll restate, I (and other CUs) was/were privately investigating this before the case got created. I'd actually rather have not had the case get created before the all the ramifications were clear, or at all, but once it's out there, I don't see the reason to hide it. And to specifically nullify G5, if you like, I'll delete the page, then recreate it with a summary that I stand behind the evidence presented, and the creation of the page. But that's just process wonkery, really (we're not dealing with Amorrow, here after all). I'm telling you that in my considered judgment, there is sufficient evidence to warrant carrying out the check. ++]: ]/] 18:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC) ****I've asked Jpgordon to share the information he gathered, which led him to conclude that Palabrazo was a sock, with me. And I'll restate, I (and other CUs) was/were privately investigating this before the case got created. I'd actually rather have not had the case get created before the all the ramifications were clear, or at all, but once it's out there, I don't see the reason to hide it. And to specifically nullify G5, if you like, I'll delete the page, then recreate it with a summary that I stand behind the evidence presented, and the creation of the page. But that's just process wonkery, really (we're not dealing with Amorrow, here after all). I'm telling you that in my considered judgment, there is sufficient evidence to warrant carrying out the check. ++]: ]/] 18:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, {{Confirmed}} that Palabrazo = {{user|Post Doctorate y-o-y}} and other users banned as Wordbomb socks. I guessed this last night, although my first check did not detect it. However, as I said, the request is otherwise valid. If the devil tells you your ] is opened, don't you zip up anyway? I can't think of a good reason to ignore policy violations based on how many enemies one has. In any event, the technical check here was inconclusive so I suggest taking it to AN/I to get some uninvolved admins to apply the ]. ] 19:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)



**<small>{{clerknote}} Moving the resulting conversation to the talk page. Please comment there on everything not directly related to the Checkuser request. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 14:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)</small> **<small>{{clerknote}} Moving the resulting conversation to the talk page. Please comment there on everything not directly related to the Checkuser request. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 14:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)</small>

Revision as of 19:17, 6 February 2008

Samiharris

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch • talk
Filed: 17:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In case it's not clear, here's how that conversation unfolded:

I started paying attention to Mantanmoreland and Samiharris a while ago because they're both active on the kinds of finance articles that interest me. Soon I noticed that they have nearly identical writing styles and always seem to be arguing about the same points, one picking up where the other left off, on articles such as:

(NOTE: before they were merged with Microcap stock fraud Samiharris and Mantanmoreland constantly backed each other up on Pump and dump and Chop stock as well)

And then there are plenty of other examples I found in about 5 minutes of looking, including:

Based on their shared style, constant proximity and singular mindset I suspect Mantanmoreland and Samiharris are being deceitfully used by the same person or people working together and wish to have CheckUser carried out to confirm it or rule it out. Palabrazo (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


    • I don't for a minute think that Palabrazo is a curious bystander who just happened across this request. However, based on the standards I usually use, and pretending I don't know the history here, the evidence is sufficient to run a check. The answer is  Inconclusive because one of these editors has only edited via open proxies. Thatcher 01:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Not that it probably matters now, but I want to make it clear that I didn't just happen across this request. I created it, but moved it here a few hours later because I aparently missed that step the first time. Is that what your concern is about? Palabrazo (talk) 03:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I see absolutely no reason to blank or delete this request. It's a legitimate request with sound reasoning for why there is a possible correlation, regardless of what was or wasn't said on WR, and regardless of who made it. In fact, I carried out my own check in this matter, prior to Alison or Thatcher doing so, and found some things I didn't quite understand, so I asked Alison to take a look as well as asking Dmcdevit for input. There is something going on here that I don't think has quite been gotten to the bottom of yet, and more investigation is needed. As a note, We block open proxies when discovered, by policy. We don't block editors who use them, absent other reasons. ++Lar: t/c 12:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I see at least one reason: WP:CSD#G5. Guy (Help!) 17:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I've asked Jpgordon to share the information he gathered, which led him to conclude that Palabrazo was a sock, with me. And I'll restate, I (and other CUs) was/were privately investigating this before the case got created. I'd actually rather have not had the case get created before the all the ramifications were clear, or at all, but once it's out there, I don't see the reason to hide it. And to specifically nullify G5, if you like, I'll delete the page, then recreate it with a summary that I stand behind the evidence presented, and the creation of the page. But that's just process wonkery, really (we're not dealing with Amorrow, here after all). I'm telling you that in my considered judgment, there is sufficient evidence to warrant carrying out the check. ++Lar: t/c 18:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record,  Confirmed that Palabrazo = Post Doctorate y-o-y (talk · contribs) and other users banned as Wordbomb socks. I guessed this last night, although my first check did not detect it. However, as I said, the request is otherwise valid. If the devil tells you your fly is opened, don't you zip up anyway? I can't think of a good reason to ignore policy violations based on how many enemies one has. In any event, the technical check here was inconclusive so I suggest taking it to AN/I to get some uninvolved admins to apply the duck test. Thatcher 19:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


    •  Clerk note: Moving the resulting conversation to the talk page. Please comment there on everything not directly related to the Checkuser request. -- lucasbfr 14:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

information Note: this request is not complete. There is still investigation going on. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 13:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And to think that I spent most of the day yesterday worried that this request would go unnoticed. Palabrazo (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)