This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Viridae (talk | contribs) at 05:39, 6 February 2008 (thanks.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 05:39, 6 February 2008 by Viridae (talk | contribs) (thanks.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Samiharris
Template:Checkuser requests to be listed
| request links: main • edit • links • history • watch • talk Filed: 17:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC) |
- Samiharris (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Mantanmoreland (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Code letter: G
- Supporting evidence: In this diff User:Mantanmoreland answers a question clearly and specifically asked of User:Samiharris, though Mantanmoreland hadn't been to that page for many months.
In case it's not clear, here's how that conversation unfolded:
- User:Dozen13 leaves a comment
- User:Samiharris responds
- User:Dozen13 responds, adding: "I'll wait for your response."
- User:Mantanmoreland 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:
(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)
- Naked short selling (see above)
- Thom Calandra
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)
- 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
- 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)
- Thatcher, out of interest are the open proxies now blocked? Viridae 04:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, they are. BTW - I also checked and concur with the above findings - Alison 05:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Ali. Viridae 05:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)