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 editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:07, 6 February 2008 editAlison (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators47,243 edits →Samiharris: proxies blocked← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:15, 14 March 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(29 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<!-- BEGIN ARCHIVE TEMPLATE --><noinclude>
<!--
If you are adding a new request for this user please add it above this notice at the top of the page. Only the latest request will appear on the checkuser page. Please don't create a separate page with a different name.
-->
{| class="messagebox"
| style="text-align: center" | If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add </br><span style="font-size: 125%">'''<nowiki>{{</nowiki>{{FULLPAGENAME}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki>'''</span></br> to the checkuser page . Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on ] (but will still appear here).
|}
<div style="background: #f5fffa; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px;">
<div style="text-align:center;">''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it'''</span>.''</div>
<!-- END ARCHIVE TEMPLATE -->
=== ] === === ] ===
{{checkuser requests to be listed}}
{{rfcu box|case=Samiharris|filed=17:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)}} {{rfcu box|case=Samiharris|filed=17:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)}}
* {{checkuser|Samiharris}}<!--Please do not edit this line--> * {{checkuser|Samiharris}}<!--Please do not edit this line-->
Line 6: Line 15:
* {{checkuser|Mantanmoreland}} * {{checkuser|Mantanmoreland}}
* '''Code letter:''' G * '''Code letter:''' G
* '''Supporting evidence:''' In ] answers a question clearly and specifically asked of ], though Mantanmoreland hadn't been to that page for many months. * '''Supporting ] answers a question clearly and specifically asked of ], though Mantanmoreland hadn't been to that page for many months.
In case it's not clear, here's how that conversation unfolded: In case it's not clear, here's how that conversation unfolded:
*] leaves a comment *] leaves a comment
Line 12: Line 21:
*] responds, adding: "I'll wait for your response." *] responds, adding: "I'll wait for your response."
*] seems to answer as Samiharris. *] seems to answer as Samiharris.
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: 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 ] Samiharris and Mantanmoreland constantly backed each other up on ] and ] as well) (NOTE: before they were merged with ] Samiharris and Mantanmoreland constantly backed each other up on ] and ] as well)
Line 26: Line 35:
:::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? ] (]) 03:38, 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? ] (]) 03:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
::*Thatcher, out of interest are the open proxies now blocked? ]] 04:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC) ::*Thatcher, out of interest are the open proxies now blocked? ]] 04:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
:::* Yes, they are. BTW - I also checked and concur with the above findings - ] <sup>]</sup> 05:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC) :::* Yes, they are. BTW - I also checked and concur with the above findings - ] <sup>]</sup> 05:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
::::*Thanks Ali. ]] 05:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
* This should be blanked or deleted; Palabrazo has been blocked as either being or acting as proxy for a banned user. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
**No it shouldnt. ]] 08:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
**I have my doubts about this being wordbomb too, for two reasons, the sammiharris/matanmoreland thing has been discussed quite reguarly at WR, and this account was quite constructive prior to this request. This indicates to me that it is unlikely to be him: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15630 ]] 08:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
***You should probably ask a CU or at ANI for that. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 09:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
**** Ask a CU what? I'm not following that part. ++]: ]/] 12:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
*****I believe that means "file a checkuser request to ascertain whether Palabrazo is a sockpuppet of Wordbomb". As there's no evidence whatsoever to suggest this at the moment, and filing a checkuser request is not a crime, nor is it even remotely convincing evidence to back up a block, I have unblocked Palabrazo. Assume good faith, please. ] ] 12:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
******This isn't the place to support unblocks so I won't do it here but if it comes up on AN/I I'll opine there. ++]: ]/] 13:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
*****Sorry I meant "ask greater input if you wish a blanking, for I don't think a clerk will come and do it". -- ] <sup>]</sup> 14:35, 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. ++]: ]/] 12:45, 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)

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)
: And Post Doctorate y-o-y is an openly admitted sock of WordBomb, in case this was not clear. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:32, 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>

{{Takenote}} this request is not complete. There is still investigation going on. Thanks. ++]: ]/] 13:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
:And to think that I spent most of the day yesterday worried that this request would go unnoticed. ] (]) 15:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

<s>Can I add to this request? I'm also puzzled by the ] behavior of:
*{{checkuser|John Nevard}}
*<s>{{checkuser|Bramlet Abercrombie}}</s>
<s>Users edit warred against JzG and Samiharris on Jan 19-20. Abercrombie swooped into the dispute in aide of Nevard with no prior talk communication. Nevard has also made a curious fix to and has apparently followed Samiharris onto other articles, such as ]. At any rate, if they're related to each other, it they've edited disruptively against the 3RR, and if they're related to Samiharris, they engaged in a false edit war to simulate more than one user. ] '']'' 09:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)</s>
:OK, scratch that; that makes no sense. There's just a lot of very weird-looking behavior about these articles. ] '']'' 09:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
::Yes I think it is weird that you engage in a content dispute with an established user in ] and then rush to request a checkuser. You were correct in striking it out.--] (]) 15:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Really? I just made the stalk board as an Almost Certain Sockpuppet of the Dark Lord Jayjg. That kind of thing is bound to get some people riled up. ] (]) 03:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
<div style="text-align:center;">''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span><br />Subsequent requests related to this user should be made ''above'', in a new section.''</div></div>
</br>
</noinclude>

Latest revision as of 18:15, 14 March 2023

If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add
{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Samiharris}}
to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

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)

And Post Doctorate y-o-y is an openly admitted sock of WordBomb, in case this was not clear. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 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)

Can I add to this request? I'm also puzzled by the Overstock.com behavior of:

Users edit warred against JzG and Samiharris on Jan 19-20. Abercrombie swooped into the dispute in aide of Nevard with no prior talk communication. Nevard has also made a curious fix to Montanmoreland's talk page, and has apparently followed Samiharris onto other articles, such as Guppy. At any rate, if they're related to each other, it they've edited disruptively against the 3RR, and if they're related to Samiharris, they engaged in a false edit war to simulate more than one user. Cool Hand Luke 09:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, scratch that; that makes no sense. There's just a lot of very weird-looking behavior about these articles. Cool Hand Luke 09:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes I think it is weird that you engage in a content dispute with an established user in Overstock.com and then rush to request a checkuser. You were correct in striking it out.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Really? I just made the stalk board as an Almost Certain Sockpuppet of the Dark Lord Jayjg. That kind of thing is bound to get some people riled up. John Nevard (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.