Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Samiharris, One editor is using "open proxies" Options

[Kato]

Here's a link to the check user made on

# Samiharris (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
# Mantanmoreland (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...Case/Samiharris

Conclusion:

I don't for a minute think that Palabrazo [who made the request] 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)

Didn't Armed Blowfish get banned for edited via open proxies?

[Kato]

HeerresJzG

Back when I was a lad I was taught that anythign created by a banned user while banned was eligible for immediate deletion, WP:CSD#G5.

What?

No policy states that.

Bagley is a known net.kook and absolutely not above forgery, the "evidence" he presents off-wiki is questionable not just because he is a vicious agenda-driven troll but also because the times have been called into question.

What?

Judd Bagley is "a vicious agenda-driven troll"????

Don't be daft. WordBomb logged the CheckUser request, it should be nuked. If not nuked, it is inconclusive. As noted above, the mere fact of being interested in naked short selling is enough to get WordBomb on your case;

What?

You banned Piperdown on the East Coast, some guy in Basingstoke England, and accused Cla68 in Japan of being Wordbomb because they edited on naked short selling.

It's got nothign to do with that other site you're involved in, other than as the venue for Bagley publishing his possibly fraudulent evidence. I don't know why anyone would give him the time of day, he's so obviously off in laa-laa land on this subject. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wordbomb politely requested a checkuser. How is that a problem, and how is that obviously "off in laa-laa land on this subject?"

If I was a devoted Wikipedian, I would be forcing JzG off the project by now. He's just a walking nightmare for the site. As I'm not, he provides a textbook study of all that is wrong with the place. Reading him is like those chapters in Management Training Manuals where they run through all the ways not to behave.