• F47890 (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

First, to disclose my COI: I am the primary author of {{singlechart}}, and am loathe to block anyone that uses it to replace our antiquated and vandalism-prone manual chart entry. That said, User:SnapSnap has raised a concern that F47890 is a sock of RyanG222. There is certainly an overlap of editing the same articles and creating spectacularly crappy articles that violate WP:CRYSTAL like this. The timing of account creation is certainly supportive of SnapSnap's suspicions. I'll also concede that F47890 is not a new user: he obviously understands Wikipedia markup well enough to dive into usage of the singlechart macro, including correct usage of parameters in cases that elude many experienced editors.

That all said, while I found RyanG222's edits to be generally destructive, I find F47890's edit's to be primarily constructive. That distinction may only go to my bias. RyanG222 was certainly familiar with singlechart, and I can see that he upgraded articles to use it.—Kww(talk) 17:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )

Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by —Kww(talk) 17:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk declined – Behavioral evidence clearly indicates that this is RyanG222. No CU necessary. –MuZemike 15:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Administrator note Blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 15:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

• 87.209.107.24 (talk ·  · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Note, adding some more... - eo (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WeedDJ (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 82.8.212.134 (talk ·  · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

RyanG222 was indef blocked by this AVI] in early May 2010 for a number of unsourced edits but more siginificantly editing to Discographies that broke MOS:DISCOG. After being denied a request to unblock i've noticed an IP has been making similar edits to him. The overalap of articles edited by suspected sock 87.209.107.24 includes Esmée Denters related articles. His contribs do have some overlap with RyanG222. It was this edit [1] which flagged up suspician as its almost identical to edits made by Ryan on this and other articles. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Reviewing administrator should read this discussion, as behavioral evidence does not suggest that this IP is RyanG222. — ξ^xplicit 23:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unconvinced, but it's not impossible, either. Suggest we wait a day and see what a little more rope reveals.—Kww(talk) 04:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that they are the same person, but can't be sure. Research in the 24 hours should make it more clear. Old Al (talk) 05:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Now that I've looked through the contributions, it seems that they are the same person. just my opinion. Old Al (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added two additional accounts, both with similar editing style and immediate knowledge of chart macros. This is currently listed under not awaiting checkuser, although I believe this case requires it. Anyone know how to move it to the appropriate queue? Thanks in advance. - eo (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's enough here to bug a clerk with.—Kww(talk) 20:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )

Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.Requested by Kww

 Clerk endorsed, but I think the given IPs aren't going to tell us much, given that they both geolocate to two separate countries. It's very possible at least one of them is not involved. –MuZemike 00:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed with respect to the named user(s).  No comment with respect to IP address(es).

Also, fwiw, the following blocked accounts are  Confirmed as being related to RyanG222:

• TheMentalist456 (talk · contribs)
• F47890 (talk · contribs)
• F1jb4567 (talk · contribs)
• Greenock999 (talk · contribs)

The last of these is tagged as a possible sock of Greenock125 (talk · contribs).

Looking at the CU logs for some of the accounts listed on Greenock125's SPI case archive, I think it is  Likely that RyanG222 et al. are related to Greenock125. (Also, there should be a link to an older case with the same name as this one, but for some reason it's not showing up.) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

• David1234556789 (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 81.104.133.64 (talk ·  · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

David1234556789 has added a template to claim that User:WeedDJ, a confirmed sockpuppet of User:RyanG222, has been unblocked (here).

Additional Note: This was the user's first and so far only contribution, the user was created today.

81.104.133.64 has also added the unblocked template to User:WeedDJ and as well as removing the sockpuppet tag (here). The IP address has also added the the unblocked template to User talk:TheMentalist456, another known sockpupper of User:RyanG222.

See Defending yourself against claims.

Checkuser request – code letter: CODE LETTER (Unknown code )

Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by - EdoDodo ^talk 08:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk declined  duck, given the nature of the edit and the timing of it. The last check was very recently so a sleeper check would not be necessary at the moment. Autoblock should catch the most recent IP. Thanks, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 09:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: blocked by Ericorbit (talk · contribs) Spitfire^Tally-ho! 13:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.