Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Samiharris

Moved from the case, it was a reply to Lar's comment at 12:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC) I don't think that the diff provided by the WordBomb sock as "supporting evidence" was an adequate basis for a checkuser, and I'm surprised that this drama is still being played out. I have edited Naked short selling on and off for two years, and have been repeatedly hounded on and off-wiki by stock market conspiracy theorists, mostly socks of Judd Bagley (WordBomb), who want to stuff that article with dubious and unsourced material. In the diff, I was responding to an obvious Bagley SPA. This is just keeps going on and on, and this bogus sockpuppet thing is just another front in this POV pushing campaign by Bagley & Co. --Mantanmoreland (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again the "thoughtcrime" of having an idea that agrees with a banned user is enforced, presumably only for ideas that disagree with the Ruling Clique, or else you'd also block people for believing that 2+2=4 or the earth goes around the sun if a banned user had expressed the same ideas before. The truth of the idea, however, is entirely irrelevant, and even attempting to determine its truth rationally is forbidden. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion belongs somewhere else, please. Thatcher 13:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I like your latest hobby horse, *Dan T.*. BADSITES as a policy seems dead enough it can be given a rest. But this idea that people should be labeled a puppet for agreeing with an idea makes the idea banned, not the user. Wikipedia has no business banning ideas, even if we can and should ban certain expressions of ideas or specific facts (racial insults and someone's home address, for example). WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thatcher's probably right, discussion of the larger picture doesn't belong here. ++Lar: t/c 13:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And, as expected, CheckUser shows that Palabrazo is indeed WordBomb. Hands up anyone who's surprised.  Anyone?  No?  Thought not. Guy (Help!) 17:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Where was this confirmed? Lawrence  §  t / e  17:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I see it here. Lawrence  §  t / e  17:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Though it is considered a "scandal" worthy of torpedoing an RFA, as in the CharlottesWebb and Armed Blowfish cases. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not especially controversial that admin candidates found to be violating policy, do not succeed. And I have to say that my subsequent conversations with ArmedBlowfish, civil though they be, lead me to the conclusion that adminship would have been the wrong way to fix that individual's very specific reason for using Tor. Guy (Help!) 17:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering the amount of crossover between the two accounts, I'm sorry Guy, I have to vehemently disagree with you regarding the courtesy blanking. If there's misbehavior by WP admins, by God, I want to know about it, and I want it fixed. If we want to claim to be the "good guys" and cry foul about other people's behavior, then we'd better be acting like good guys (and therefore following the rules).
 * As long as the information is true, quite frankly, I don't give a flying fig where it comes from. Considering the amount of cross-over between the two accounts previously established, I find the fact that one of the articles is using behavior that seems to confirm the long standing doubts about this account. Everyone uses WP:DUCK to link accounts.. doesn't the facts in this case seem to be quacking at a fairly rapid rate? (and yes, fair comment, I USED to post on WR, and yes, Mantanmoreland and I went round and round a few times during the Piperdown discussions. Getting any perceived bias right out there in the open) SirFozzie (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a serious matter that should be investigated further. There is enough fishy information now reviewed independently by trusted editors and admins unrelated to wordbomb's sock to establish reasonable suspicion that something's wrong here. Obstructing further investigation would be very inappropriate.-- A. B. (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)