Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Blue Bugle

• Blue Bugle (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• LemonMonday (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Evidence: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Blue Bugle
• Code letter: G

 Possible based on current CU evidence. Admins should look at behavioral evidence too. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Case filed by Jehochman (talk · contribs) (note made for transparency). Also I have formatted the case, here is the revision before my changes: [1]. Tiptoety ^talk 22:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to block both accounts because they only seem to exist for the purpose of reverting User:HighKing, per the evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Blue Bugle. Jehochman ^Talk 03:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the block, or the behavioural evidence in general, I'm going to say that while I understand why Rlevse may have come to a "possible" (having talked to him offline), I looked at the data as well and I'd probably call it  Unlikely that these two users are related. That doesn't mean anything more than sometimes it's not clear what is what... remember people:  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. Again!!! If the behaviour is such that the duck test is passed, if there is disruptive behaviour, patterns, etc, the technical findings not matching do not prove anything. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 21:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AlcatrazBirdman (talk · contribs) is definitely a sock of Blue Bugle (talk · contribs). And both editors have extensively edit warred while logged out, too. As far as the main finding is concerned, I would tend to call it inconclusive rather than possible, but that's as much individual preference as anything else. There is no direct evidence like a shared IP, but for various reasons, I am unwilling to completely rule it out. A more detailed discussion of the principles involved might be better held elsewhere, though. Thatcher 21:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur re. AlcatrazBirdman (talk · contribs) - Alison ^❤ 22:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also reviewed this case, and per technical evidence, concur with Thatcher on this one. This appears to be  Inconclusive, and I'm going to unblock accordingly - Alison ^❤ 21:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely issue a strong warning that edit warring and reverting User:HighKing while logged out to avoid scrutiny is unacceptable. Thatcher 22:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These accounts have engaged in bad behavior, independently of any socking. They both seem to only exist for the purpose of reverting User:HighKing. Jehochman ^Talk 22:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there's truth to that. However, the editor's now been final-warned on that sort of behaviour so he's definitely in the Last Chance Saloon here. We can't block on this checkuser result, though. See how things go? - Alison ^❤ 22:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you like. The scales tip depending on the CU finding. Jehochman ^Talk 22:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)LemonMonday is back, same behaviour. This SPA is determined methinks. Three reverts so far today - Cup and ring mark, Old time music and Drovers' road. --HighKing (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have  Relisted this case under "outstanding requests," to allow a CheckUser to reevaluate the matter in light of HighKing's addition dated 10 October. Anthøny ✉ 17:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no further evidence provided by these edits: the case remains  Inconclusive. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]