- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Iantresman
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- Iantresman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Raevaen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
ScienceApologist (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Few contributions, but they establish a disturbing trend:
- Questioning Raul654 about perceived slights. These are directly related to accusations that Ian Tresman leveled against Raul.
- Two areas he was interested in included checkuser and the community sanction noticeboard. Ian Tresman was banned by the latter and found to be sockpuppeteering by Raul654 by the former.
- This diff looks a lot like Ian Tresman's typical gaming. Referring to an unvetted Astrophysics Data System search was a COMMON practice for Ian. Interestingly, Ian is also the web-designer of Corliss's website, and so probably has a concerted interest in the subject of me removing links to this website.
Anyway, I've interacted with Ian a LOT and this looks very suspicious. I'd appreciate a rebuttal if Raevaen can offer one.
- Comments
There is nothing to rebut. Your point (1) has nothing to do with slights, (2) seems a common subject of discussion (3) is a joke right, since when is a question "gaming"? I think you are over-reacting, and failing to assume good faith. --Raevaen (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks likely that this account is a previous user who has a beef with Raul654 and ScienceApologist. It's unusual, to say the least, for a new account to find its way to ArbCom election statements as its first edit, and then to pop up 7 months later on a user talk page. I'm inclined to block, but maybe some other administrator has some input. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- I don't have enough evidence from Raevaen's contributions. Take it to CU if you think the evidence is strong enough. ScarianCall me Pat! 21:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]