User talk:Samiharris

I note that you have not participated in the arbitration case that has been pending for the past several weeks. If you have any information or evidence that you would like either the Arbitration Committee or the community to consider in their evaluation of this matter, please present it here as soon as possible. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please do not remove or revert this request while the request for arbitration and request for clarification are pending, regardless of any other decision or action as to the status of this account. Allowing an opportunity for the editor to present any relevant information or evidence, or to decline to do so, is in the best interests of all concerned. Exception if this account will not edit again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Wikipedia's role with respect to serious off-wiki or "real world" controversies and disputes is to provide encyclopedic coverage of such matters from a neutral point of view where they are notable and sufficiently documented in reliable sources. Neither Wikipedia's mainspace article content, nor its administrative and dispute-resolution procedures culminating in Arbitration, are intended or may be used as a vehicle for off-wiki disputes such as those involving the financial markets or legal or regulatory issues. Actions related to the articles involved, including naked short selling, overstock.com, Patrick M. Byrne, the (now-redirected article) Judd Bagley, and Gary Weiss, have been repeatedly disruptive and have had serious implications both on and off wiki. Any current of future editor making substantial edits to these articles is direct ed:

(A) To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account;

(B) To edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration;

(C) To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding; and

(D) To disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page.

Any uninvolved admin may impose reasonable restrictions, after warning, upon involved articles or editors. Knowledgeable and uninvolved editors are urged to review these articles to ensure accuracy, fairness, and adherence to wiki policies. User:Mantanmoreland, under any current or future account, is banned from editing articles related to Gary Weiss, Patrick Byrne, Overstock.com, Naked Short Selling, and other mainspace articles in the area of dispute, broadly construed. He may make suggestions on talk pages, subject to the requirements of remedy 1 in the decision. User:Mantanmoreland is directed to edit Wikipedia from only a single user account and to advise the Arbitration Committee of any change of username, and to edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration.

For the committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 21:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open proxy usage

The spyware that WordBomb uses does not work on Wikipedia if you do not click any external links. So why not post an unblock request _without_ using an open proxy? —Random832 02:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have confirmation he is still using proxies? daveh4h 05:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is, according to Alison - confirmation in a thread on Newyorkbrad's talk page. Jay*Jay (talk) 05:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just spotted that, thanks! here is the diff (for the sake of posterity). daveh4h 05:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samiharris, if you have nothing to hide, then stop using open proxies. Do you have anything to hide? Cla68 (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also note Samiharris was unblocked for the specific purpose of participating in the arbcase. If Coren hadn't blocked him, I would have when I closed the case. I told the arbs of this and they did not object. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]