Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/TheM62Manchester

If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/TheM62Manchester}}
to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).

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

TheM62Manchester

TheM62Manchester (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
LiverpoolCommander (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I've never done anything with RFCU before so forgive me if this isn't a valid reason to check etc. I have noticed very similar editing patterns between these two editors, after coming across LiverpoolCommander (talk · contribs) MFD'ing banned editor TheM62Manchester's failed RfA. I did some 'investigating', found that the LiverpoolCommander account was created about two weeks after TheM62Manchester was indefinitely blocked. I used User:Voice of All's javascript to compare the two accounts' editing patterns and found that:

They both have had an active input on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles.
They both frequent Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.
Very strong point: They both left a barnstar for User:Cyde, which if you look closely at the text, both are very similar, including the same phrase "here's to you, Cyde!" in both which is very suspicious.
Other pages they have both edited include Talk:Tony Blair, Template:Suspsock, Template:Banned user, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and User talk:Mackensen. The two account also carry out the same habits of tagging indefinitely blocked users' pages like this.

I think this in very strong evidence to suggest the two accounts are related in some way, especially the Cyde barnstar issue and the MfD issue. Also note the similar usernames, both contain place names from Lancashire, UK. Cheers, — FireFox ^(talk) _{17:02, 22 September 2006}

Update: Admins can follow this link to TheM62Manchester's deleted userpage – note that he states on that version "I'm not a new editor, I actually edited ages ago as User:Chelston (forgot the password!) but have somehow kept up with Wikipedia politics over the years! (despite not editing!)", the same as LiverpoolCommander says here. Due to this further evidence I have blocked LiverpoolCommander as a sockpuppet of the banned user TheM62Manchester and withdraw this CheckUser request as no longer necessary. — FireFox ^(talk) _{20:24, 22 September 2006}

Declined You have to provide evidence of abuse in addition to evidence of sock puppetry. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I suppose this, but I thought it was against policy for banned users to edit – that equals abuse, no? Anyway I've blocked him so this checkuser is no longer necessary, as pointed out above. — FireFox ^(talk) _{20:59, 22 September 2006}

This is also related to Sunholm/Sunfazer which became TheM62Manchester, previously there have been multiple sock accounts vandalising behind the main account. I'll concur with FireFox's conclusions that this is indeed the same person, it maybe worth checking the IP to see if there are any sleeper accounts or if there indeed was other vandalism for which the IP should be blocked in line with assorted other IPs which have been blocked as a result of this user. --pgk 21:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: Again, as Univited Co points out, there is no sockpuppet abuse. The diff above shows a banned user editing his own talk page. For now, it would be better to just block the users independent of the other ones actions, as any relation is not relevant as this point. Request a CU check once we have serious sockpuppet abuse.Voice-of-All 21:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what you are saying is the reincarnation of an indefinitely blocked user who has been blocked multiple times under different account, and who usually has multiple other accounts engaging in massive amount of vandalism, isn't worth checking out quietly and dealing with. Guess the message is don't bother reporting we aren't interested in taking preventative measures? As FireFox already pointed out using sockpuppets to avoid blocks is abusive according to the sock policy and blocking policy --pgk 21:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: Checkuser is rarely used as a preventative. Daniel .Bryant 23:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK I guess I'm misunderstanding the IP check part at the bottom of the main page then. Yes I know this wasn't entered into that section, but this really is the primary purpose of this check. I doubt that the two users will come up with the same IP, since via checkuser the original IPs had long blocks put against them... --pgk 09:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is really Sunfazer/Sunholm, you might tickle Mackensen's talk page when his wikibreak is over. S/S is one of his specialties, so to speak. Thatcher131 23:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.