Iantresman (second request)

• Iantresman ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 82.35.165.180‎ ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser ( log))
• F: User talk:Iantresman
• Supporting evidence: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Iantresman (2nd nomination)‎ Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Iantresman

It was recommended I file an RFCU here to shed light on the situation by User:Jehochman. See also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Iantresman. ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply

 Clerk note: Request was previously listed at "/Case/Iantresman (second request)"; now merged. Anthøny 15:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply

• The IP belongs to Soupdragon42 ( talk · contribs). Ian's IP is  Unrelated. Thatcher 16:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Soupdragon42 has also used the sockpuppet Ski fan ( talk · contribs). Thatcher 16:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
    • There is an entire forum of Ian Tresman allies angry at my activity at Wikipedia: [1]. Soupdragon, it turns out, is one of the names of one of the members there other than Iantresman. ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I am going to block the main account for two weeks to discourage further harassment, and I will indef the other sock puppet account with a soft block. There is no legitimate reason to operate a second account. It only serves to evade scrutiny. Jehochman ^Talk 16:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Iantresman

• Iantresman ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Applecola ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Leokor ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tsyko ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Code letter: F

Iantresman apparently used Applecola as a sockpuppet, and borrowed the account of Leokor (a real person), both to evade his ban. The evidence has been documented at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Iantresman. Art LaPella 01:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• The community ban discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive10#Iantresman. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• • I've added Tsyko ( talk · contribs) - this brand-new account appeared at an arbitration case to file a bunch of evidence against User:ScienceApologist - obviously this is not a new user and has a grudge against SA. I strongly suspect it's an Iantresman sock. MastCell ^Talk 17:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

 Unnecessary. These have all been since blocked by Raul, along with he IP. I think the matter is resolved. Dmcdevit· t 23:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• • Actually, Leokor has never been blocked. Cardamon 06:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC) reply

• • Blocked since when, and on what grounds? If someone filed a CheckUser request, that does not automatically constitute guilt on our parts. Innocent until proven guilty. The conclusions of the archived discussion Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Iantresman state that there is no strong reason to think that Applecola and myself are sockpuppet. The CheckUser request was filed on the thinnest of evidence, and I was eagerly anticipating the results. In fact, I find it insulting to suggest, with the full knowledge and proof of me being a real person distinct from Ian Tresman (moreover, residing on, and connecting, traceably, from a different continent), that I would allow anyone to borrow my account--as if I couldn't speak for myself! This blocking is entirely ungrounded. I hope that it's a sincere mistake and does not represent an indirect attempt to use a CheckUser request to decide the matter against us without even doing it, where a true and unbiased check would definitely prove us innocent. -- Leokor 02:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC) reply

• • • I personally have no evidence that you have ever done anything wrong. I was correcting a misstatement by Dmcdevit in which he said that you had been blocked. Right now I am not advocating any action except running the CheckUser, which is apparently what you want too. Cardamon 04:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Leokor is  Unrelated. Dmcdevit· t 05:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I apologize to Leokor. Art LaPella 05:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Apology accepted. -- Leokor 14:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Still, I have some questions regarding this case. Neither Applecola nor Tsyko had been blocked prior to the request. CheckUser was filed, presumably, in order to find evidence to block them. CheckUser was not performed on them. And they are now blocked. I hope I'm misreading this. -- Leokor 14:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC) reply

In my opinion, the objective evidence of such a CheckUser would avoid giving the impression that one side of the plasma cosmology/mainstream vendetta has once again outmuscled the other. Art LaPella 20:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Is this how you see it, then? So the matter was somehow already decided, and you wanted to maintain appearance? And here's me thinking that objective evidence is the only kind of evidence there can be, of which you had, and still have, none at all. -- Leokor 03:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Answered on Leokor's user page. Art LaPella 04:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Iantresman

• Iantresman ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Girls4girls ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Code letter: G

Iantresman was indefblocked by Tom harrison based on mounting evidence at a community ban discussion. Iantresman weighed in twice at this discussion ( [2], [3]) before being blocked.

Girls4girls' only edits since his/her account was created were:

1. A comment on an RfAR Iantresman opened against FeloniousMonk ( [4])
2. Comment on the community ban discussion ( [5])

Blueboy 96 19:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

User(s) blocked.: The contribs make it obvious that this is a throwaway account created to participate in the discussions surrounding Iantresman, and is almost certainly one of Ian's sockpuppets. I've blocked it indefinitely; I don't know that checkuser is necessary in a case like this, though I'll leave that up to the powers that be. MastCell ^Talk 21:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

At the very least, Girls4girls is a meatpuppet of Iantresman--I still believe the checkuser should be run for a definitive answer as to whether it's a sock or just a meatpuppet. Blueboy 96 22:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

 Inconclusive -- all edits were on open proxies, which I've blocked, but there's no way to tie them to Iantresman. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 22:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply