Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Canterberry

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

Canterberry
Prior confirmed (admission or blatant evidence) and already blocked alternate accounts:
 * - admitted
 * - admitted
 * - admitted
 * - admitted
 * - admitted
 * - admitted
 * - blatant evidence

Additional suspected accounts on which a checkuser check is requested.
 * Code letter: F
 * Supporting evidence: block log, unblock declines:, ,.
 * Supporting evidence: block log, unblock declines:, ,.

Canterberry was indefinite blocked at 08:07, 25 October 2007 for using most of the admitted puppets to make personal attacks on a single editor. Beechgrove's account was created 25 hours later. Beechgrove has primarily been editing UK railroad articles (contribs), which was also Canterberry's primary topic of interest (contribs). This is a topic of enough general interest to not be usable as adequate evidence of puppetry, however. The Catlows Cat account was created on 29 October, had similar topic interest, and got caught when Canterberry used it to make his latest unblock request then changed the signature using the main account. There is a gap in Beechgrove's contributions covering the periods when the autoblock associated with Catlows Cat was in effect, and very little contribution by Beechgrove when Catlows Cat was active (contribs). I suspect, but don't have blatant evidence to prove, that Beechgrove is another block evading puppet of Canterberry. I also am concerned that there may be more sleeper or active accounts, most likely created close in time to Catlows Cat's creation, Beechgrove's creation, and the expiry of the autoblock on Catlows Cat, but don't have suspects in mind.

There is currently some thought that Canterberry may be a redeemable editor, and whether or not they are continuing to evade their block with puppets is going to be relevant to whether we decide that this user is redeemable and how to proceed. GRBerry 17:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * bordering on unlikely. --Deskana (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. With that many confirmed puppets with recent edits to check, I think inconclusive is solid evidence against.  -- GRBerry (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2007 (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.''