Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Iantresman

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Iantresman}}
to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.


Iantresman (second request)

[edit]
request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 15:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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]


Iantresman

[edit]
request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 19:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • 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]

no 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]

    • 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 Red X 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

[edit]
request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 19:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • 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])

Blueboy96 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. Blueboy96 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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Iantresman&oldid=1138657017"