Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ryan beta

''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it .''

Ryan beta



 * Code letter: G


 * Supporting evidence: This is long and I know that I've missed some things, I would be happy to provide further evidence at any point. I have further evidence that would require outting myself. And while Wikipedia is a fine project, I don't know that the possible loss of my job would be worth it.


 * Ryan beta was primarily responsible for composing the Joel Kass article which I nominated for deletion for hoax and sockpuppetry (I did not know, at the time, that sockpuppetry was not a reason for deletion). The deletion request has been supported as being non-notable.
 * All of these accounts - minus the last 2 accounts - had only edited the Joel Kass article up until the point at which I nominated the article for deletion. The only exception to this is one of the accounts edited the Mozart article once.
 * AbdulZayed3432 was created today and has been copying/removing/pasting my comments and has stated that they have "supported" and "worked with" me. All comments are anti-Zionist in nature and are an attempt to defeat the AfD nomination through round about straw-man arguments (AbdulZayed3432 supports Meatstrain who wants to delete the article, therefore I don't think the article should be deleted).
 * In User Talk for Keeper76, OhSheilaOh made comments about an "Adrian Dominican Organization" (the Adrian Dominican Sisters).
 * Realizing that may place other articles I care about at risk, I checked several of those articles. In the St. Dominic article, I found that Ryan beta had made several defamatory edits.
 * SpicyMeatGrinder was created today and has solely attacked the reputation of the Saint Dominic article.

The best way to look at supporting evidence is through contribs, which should already be listed. I apologize for not being more thorough links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meatstrain (talk • contribs)
 * Hi, that would be great if you could provide diffs of the edits from these users that support your assertions or raised your suspicions. That would greatly help the checkusers in order to decide whether or not they can perform the check. -- lucasbfr  talk 08:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to drop this for now. I felt a need due to numerous attacks made yesterday. They've trailed off today, so I see no need to pursue this. Meatstrain (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * and moved to non-compliant requests Tiptoety  talk 02:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * as evidence has been provided. Tiptoety  talk 16:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Other named accounts are too old to check. Thatcher 06:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All confirmed accounts blocked indef and tagged. Tiptoety  talk 16:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Other named accounts are too old to check. Thatcher 06:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All confirmed accounts blocked indef and tagged. Tiptoety  talk 16:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Other named accounts are too old to check. Thatcher 06:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All confirmed accounts blocked indef and tagged. Tiptoety  talk 16:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Other named accounts are too old to check. Thatcher 06:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All confirmed accounts blocked indef and tagged. Tiptoety  talk 16:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Other named accounts are too old to check. Thatcher 06:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All confirmed accounts blocked indef and tagged. Tiptoety  talk 16:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Other named accounts are too old to check. Thatcher 06:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All confirmed accounts blocked indef and tagged. Tiptoety  talk 16:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All confirmed accounts blocked indef and tagged. Tiptoety  talk 16:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

''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.''