Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/L.L.King (2nd)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:L.L.King

Suspected sockpuppeteer

L.L.King (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

MichaelQSchmidt has an editing pattern identical to that of blocked puppetmaster L.L.King, who had employed numerous sockpuppets to promote various nonnotable actors and projects like Paris in Jail:The Music Video, James Evans and Michael Q. Schmidt. MichaelQSchmidt registered immediately after L.L.King's checkuser-confirmed sockpuppets were blocked and began lobbying heavily to preserve the article at Michael Q. Schmidt. He has also participated in IFD discussions to preserve Image:Michael Q. Schmidt at wrap party for Yesterday Was A Lie.jpg to use on his own article. This image was originally uploaded by User:Mqschmidt, who was later blocked for creating spam articles at Paris in Jail: The Music Video and Omovies, among others. User:MichaelQSchmidt claimed he was the uploader and/or owned the rights to the image. Because of the obvious implications, this user is probably the same as User:Mqschmidt. MichaelQSchmidt's entire edit history consists of his defense or promotion of articles created by L.L.King and/or personal attacks against me for nominating them at AFD.

More telling, both mqschmidt.com and cinemapress.biz are registered to Michael Schmidt. User:Cinemapress is a blocked sockpuppet of User:L.L.King and cinemapress.biz itself characterizes the reviews as being written by Leon L. King. The style and font of both websites are also substantially similar. User:Cinemapress was also responsible for creating many of the same articles (among them R3tual and Paris in Jail) as User:Mqschmidt, before the latter account was blocked and the former was uncovered a sock of User:L.L.King.

• Annotated discussion on IP, copied from below:

Here is blocked sockpuppet "Cinemapress" vandalizing Stars are Blind after their edits for Paris in Jail: The Music Video were removed. Here is that IP reinserting the same vandalism after it was reverted by Icewedge. Here it is again and here they are restoring the deleted text originally inserted by the sockpuppet and here is LL King restoring that same information several months later. This is that same IP commenting on an IFD discussion 6 months later on OTRS permissions for MichaelQSchmidt. These are all obviously linked to the same IP because they are being used by the same user, who has now confirmed his identity as Michael Schmidt.

The IP check was already run back in January and confirmed that this IP is L.L.King's. This would mean, therefore, that MichaelQSchmidt is L.L.King and has been abusively editing this encyclopedia for over 9 months now.

More: 2 days after this user registered the sockpuppet account MichaelQSchmidt, they registered user:Topotina to continue to abusively edit Sean Haines (actor) and other articles (which I can't see since they're deleted). This is, again, significant evidence that this user continued to register numerous sockpuppet accounts to continue to try and promote themselves and their projects on this encyclopedia. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

For the sake of clarity, CC decided to delete his original comment in the Evidence section stating "User:MichaelQSchmidt as an account name is also a violation of username policy, since it's the name of a real person who has not been confirmed as the true owner of the account." OTRS has confirmed the identity of Mr. Schmidt. This is not specifically intended in any manner to reflect negatively on CC, but to provide a context for the discussion below. This has been intentionally placed out of chronological order so that the order of the discussion is preserved (at the request of CC it has been placed in the comments section and not in the Evidence section). — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• His OTRS confirmation does not preclude him from being a sockpuppet or the original puppetmaster. I can't see how that's relevant to the conversation, other than to try and appeal to a false authority over his true identity. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• If it isn't relevant, then why did you add it in the first place? Moreover, the responses below address it. Without context, it appears as if other people brought up the subject, not you. That said, I agree that his OTRS confirmation does not preclude him from being a sockpuppeter. There is no appeal to some imaginary higher authority here. Honest question: Are you viewing admins as a "false authority"? A specific admin? I'm confused about your last sentence. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• If somebody is abusively employing sockpuppets, they won't be shielded by an OTRS confirmation. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Again, just for clarification, who is "a false authority"? — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Case against L.L.King opened and long ago closed: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/L.L. King. This is a case against someone who has not been on Wiki since January 7th 2008. I myself re-joined Wiki on January 10, 2008, only after receiving dozens of emails from fans informing me of a controversy surrounding an article about me that was on Wiki. In 2007 I joined as mqschmidt. Frustration and how to use Wiki caused me to quickly abandon that account and spend more time in my career. Simply put, I did not have the time for it and simply let it go. It is now being alleged that I am myself a sockpuppet of someone no longer editing Wiki. I would not ever have been back here if it were not for the machinations of CC. There is an claim that I have an editing pattern "identical" to L.L.King, when in point of fact, I have gone to great lengths to absolutely NOT edit anything edited by L.L.King. Any claim to the contrary is a blatant and deliberate mistruth. The statement is made that I was "lobbying heavily to preserve the article at Michael Q. Schmidt" (seriously deconstructed yet again). Histories will show my anger at being made a subject of ricicule by CC, and my "lobbying" was more in the line of "take the artcle the hell off of Wiki and out of the hands of an over zealous editor". What he had done then was an insult and I wanted my name dissconnected with Wiki even more than he did. It was only after other editors came forward and defended the article that I myself agreed to leave matters in the hands of the Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Q. Schmidt (actor), which consensus voted to retain the article, much to CC's displeasure. Cooler heads prevailed.

In August of 2007, under my original login of mqschmidt, I uploaded the image in question. MQSchmidt is/was me and I never denied it, though no one ever asked (and come on... seriously... does it look like I was hiding something under an anonymous login?). Were MQSchmidt and MichaelQSchmidt even editing in the same years?? Wiki does not allow the using of two usernames by the same person at the same time to subvert Wiki due process. That would be puppetry. I thereafter got so involved in film projects that I had no time for Wiki and turned promotions over to King as well as limited rights to that image for use in my promotion. As for my username MQSchmidt.... it has been abandoned a long, long time ago... back when I myself gave up on ever trying to figure Wiki out. It was CC who brought me back and I decided I was not going to hide behind anonymity. And yes, I participated in discussions about the image and the article. That is most definitely NOT against Wiki policy and I was extremely careful about how I particpated. Defending oneself against deconstruction is allowed under Wiki policy. Calling that defense a "personal attack" is misleading. Yes, and as already admitted and dealt with 6 months ago, I was angry at CC and I insulted him. I was uncivil. However, cooler heads prevailed and I apologized... six months ago and in no way cogent to this claim of puppetry.

MQSchmidt.com, Cinemapress.biz, are registered to me. But so is Feareverafter.net and a few others. Its not a crime. And actually encourages my own careful avoidence of editing the Wiki article about myself or now hiring anyone else specifically to watch over or edit it for me. I'll defend it. I'll support it. But I will NOT edit it as I am VERY aware of the possible shout of COI. Six months ago, a consensus agreed that the article, (as it existed last week) could and should remain on Wiki.. and yet this is still not germain to an accusation of puppetry. Repeatedly calling up a closed and long settled case to make innuendo and try to create a new and unfounded case, is not in the spirit of Wiki. I have been careful in the extreme when personally dealing with Wiki... specially knowing that CC would be paying very close attention to everything I do. Using my own name is NOT in any way a violation of Wikipedia:Username policy. I've read it. Carefully. Any claim that I am in violation is misleading at best. Wikipedia:Username policy informs that a person could be vulnerable to personal attack and harrassment if their identity is known. Wikipedia:Username policy informs an editor to consider the drawbacks of making contributions under their real name. Nowhere... absolutely no where does it say I cannot. I am not in violation.

HOWEVER.... and though not required, I have just sent an email to info-en@wikimedia.org as suggested in Wikipedia:Username policy to assure them that I am me, the one and only true Michael Q. Schmidt, and the only one using MichaelQSchmidt as a username.

MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• User:Mqschmidt is an indefinitely blocked user. User:MichaelQSchmidt admits to being this user and thus creating the very same articles that User:Cinemapress and User:L.L.King would recreate that same month. This strongly lends itself to support the conclusion that these accounts are all linked. This user's admission to block-evading sockpuppetry also supports that conclusion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• • User:Mqschmidt never admitted to "block-evading sockpuppetry". Please stop distorting other people's posts to support your agenda/vendetta. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• User:MichaelQSchmidt admitted to being User:Mqschmidt, who is blocked indefinitely. This meets the definition of "block-evading" sockpuppetry. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• The timeline of sockpuppetry here goes like this:

• User:Mqschmidt blocked on 17 August 2007 for creating spam articles at R3tual, Paris in Jail: The Music Video and others.

• User:L.L.King and his socks begin registering on 20 August 2007.

• After an extensive investigation, L.L.King and all of his socks are blocked on 7 January 2008.

• User:MichaelQSchmidt registers on 9 January 2008. Edits only talk pages of users concerned with the AFD or IFD of articles or pictures of L.L.King and his socks, as well as the deletion discussions themselves. This includes the AFDs for James Evans (actor), Kelly Taylor (actress) and Michael Q. Schmidt.

• Given the pattern here, I'd say this is an open and shut case. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• An editor is not supposed to use only those parts of policy that he agrees with. In Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, in the section on "Legitimate uses of alternative accounts", and its subsection titled "Clean start under a new name", it is stated: "If you have a negative track record and you have decided to make a genuine, clean, and honest, new start, and do not wish it to be tarnished by your prior conduct, you can simply discontinue using the old account(s), and create an unconnected new account which becomes the only account you then use, and is used in a good manner. Discontinuing the old account means specifically that the old account is not used for editing ever again. If the old account is later used in addition to a new account after supposedly being discontinued, then it has not been discontinued and would fall under the policy for alternative accounts, above." The account Mqschmidt was blocked for rudeness and uncivility, not for sockpuppery. I had no idea what I was doing. Five (5) months later I came back to make a clean start and have done my very utmost to remian within guideline and policy, and NOT edit any article out of fear of screams of COI violation. I did not try to resurrect Mqschmidt. Wanting to honor what Wiki offers, and wishing a Clean Start, MichaelQSchmidt is the only account I use. It has not been used to be deceptive or misleading. Having once used Mqschmidt and now using only MichaelQSchmidt does it look like I'm trying to fool or mislead anyone?? Of course not. I was a rank beginnier... a total neophyte last year. I am here to learn, to contribute, and this is ALL entirely within policy and guideline. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• I would hardly call your new account a "clean start." You remain focused on performing the exact same promotional edits that got you blocked under your former account and you show no signs of changing your behavior with this one. You keep saying you paid a publicist to perform all these edits and register all these sockpuppets, thinking you'll get away with the abusive sockpuppetry tied to User:L.L.King, but in fact you are the same person that registered those accounts and you have a history of manipulative and deceitful sockpuppetry tied to all of these accounts. You're not fooling anyone. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have scrupuluposly NOT made any edits to articles as you contimue to claim, and only involved myself in discussions with more experienced editors. Its called learning. I never said I paid a publicist to specifically perfom "all these edits". What was said is that I paid a publicist to promote me. He was never told to go and perform edits on Wikipedia. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• And I ask editors to examine the history of this page itself to see that cogent rebuttal has been repeatedly removed by CC because it showed his accusation to be without merit. Those actions speak volumes. Check the history. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yea, right. Your "cogent rebuttal" is your claim that you paid somebody else to break the rules, which is exactly the same as breaking them yourself. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• And anyway you own the website your "publicist" writes for, so I guess what I'm really trying to say here is that you have fabricated the identity of Leon L. King to write bogus reviews for your own movies and to promote yourself on Wikipedia so you wouldn't have your name linked to it when you got caught. I'm not (and by extension, nobody else is) as dumb as you think I am, so it's pretty easy to see that you're the only person behind all of these accounts. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

MQS, I'd like to send you an e-mail, but you have not set up that feature with Wikipedia. Please do so. Furthermore, I highly recommend that you simply leave this page alone. It isn't getting anything anywhere. Your points are extremely clear...as are CC's (who apparently believes nothing of what you say and will misconstrue anything you do say to support his assertions). — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Been gone ALL day on 2 different film shoots. Exhausted. I just did email address verification. Learning. Never knew I could or should. Its there now. Hope to here. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 06:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

I've read every word of this discussion. I would summarize the issues like this:

1. Was MichaelQSchmidt a block-evading sockpuppet of the blocked account MQSchmidt?
   • Cumulus Clouds (CC): Yes.
   • MichaelQSchmidt (MQS): No. It's valid as a "clean start under a new name," and besides, the connection between the two accounts is obvious and was never meant to be hidden.
   • My opinion: This is a gray area in policy. I lean toward MQS's opinion that this aspect of his behavior was okay.
2. Is MQS the same person as L. L. King?
   • CC: Yes.
   • MQS: No.
   • My opinion: Probably not. It seems, from the evidence about the off-wiki websites, that Leon L. King is a real person other than MQS, and L. L. King edited Wikipedia under his own name.
3. Assuming they are two different people, is MQS a "meat-puppet of L. L. King?
   • CC: Yes.
   • MQS: Not really.
   • My opinion: I really, really don't like the concept of a "meat-puppet." If you're a different person from a banned user, then you are not a banned user. You are, however, advised to avoid the behavior that got the other guy banned.
4. Is MQS's username a violation of policy?
   • CC: Yes. MQS has not proven that he is the person he claims to be.
   • MQS: No. He is not required to prove this, but if it is required, he sent a communication to the WMF queue.
   • My opinion: MQS is probably telling the truth. I have no reason to doubt that he is who he says he is.
5. Even if MQS is not a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet, should he be sanctioned for other reasons?
   • The parties did not explicitly discuss this matter, but it complicates the dispute. Looking at the history of User talk:Cumulus Clouds, it's evident that the dispute between these parties goes back to January, and there have been personal attacks from an IP address speaking for MQS toward CC that led to a block in January. The long-winded response by MQS here vented a lot of pent-up frustration.

I have never referred a case directly from this page to arbitration, but I am seriously considering it. There are a number of complicated issues, some of which are beyond my ability to understand in their full depth. At a minimum, I seek administrative help. Yechiel (Shalom) 01:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I was brought here from a message on my talk page from Shalom. I was Michael's adopter soon after he rejoined under this account name. I have proof of nothing, this is only opinion.

1. I don't believe the part of policy MQS is quoting applies to him. He did not leave an account with a negative track record. He was indef blocked and account creation was disabled. This was not a decision to start anew knowing he'd made mistakes. He was forced off. If his behavior did not significantly change between the two accounts, it should be considered evading a block.
2. I don't know enough about L.L.King to be able to say whether or not they are the same person or not. Checkuser evidence should be able to prove this. Also, by our username policy, MQS should have to submit proof to OTRS that he is the actor he claims to be. It's irresponsible of Wikipedia to allow him to edit under this name without such proof, as he is a disruptive editor and, if not the actor, he is tarnishing his reputation on the internet.
3. Running Betacommand's edit compare tool, they share edits to only two pages. MQS's talk page, and Cumulus Cloud's talk page. Average edit times are about an hour apart. That means their not supporting each other in content discussions or disputes. However, this does not go into deleted edits.
4. I've not had doubt that he's who he claims to be, but as I say, it's irresponsible of us not to have proof. And I believe it is in violation of policy.
5. He should be sanctioned if he has violated policy. The rest is irrelevant to that.

I don't know that Arbitration is necessary here. Checkuser evidence should be able to clear a lot of this up. OTRS the rest. If there is disruptive behavior, an RFC would be appropriate. Going to the AC at this point is premature, in my view. LaraLove|Talk 03:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Good assessment Lara. IMHO, I think a "negative track record" is simply a way to say yeah, he was blocked. I believe his behavior appreciably improved, so I don't believe that this is a block evasion, but I'll admit this is a grey area in Wikipedia. Checkuser and OTRS should cover this problem pretty well, but if these users are who they claim to be, then they will likely originate from the same general area of California (that's nothing conclusive, but should be noted and considered, IMHO). As for the rest, you're spot on. Great feedback! Thanks. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as the proof of identity goes, that seems to already be in the works. Lara, as an admin, maybe you can check on the progress of that ticket. Franamax (talk) 04:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the mention of this issue on Shalom's talk page, and I sometimes comment on SSP cases. I agree with most of Shalom and Lara's reasoning above. It looks to me that MichaelQSchmidt does qualify under the 'fresh start' clause. His contribution history since his account was created in January 2008 doesn't look bad. He appears sensitive to the COI issues regarding his own article at Michael Q. Schmidt. (The previous account, User:Mqschmidt, did misbehave and create some silly articles back in August 2007. Though that account is still indef blocked, if it requested an unblock it might succeed). If it were up to me to close this, I'd probably close with no action, finding that it is not a violation of WP:SOCK. EdJohnston (talk) 05:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Would it best serve for me to discontinue all use of MichaelQSchmidt and request a reinstatement as Mqschmidt? To whom would I make such request? Or would it better serve for me to ask an Admin to approve a clean start as MichaelQSchmidt rather than for to simply claim to have made one? Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 06:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

What do others think about unblocking Mqschmidt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? I can summarize that account's deleted edits from 2007 for anyone following this debate who is not an admin. It has 21 edits altogether, all from August 2007. It was blocked indef for 'creating nonsense pages'. That account's entire career is pretty well summarized at User talk:Mqschmidt (note the assorted warnings). Unblocking the old account (which he would agree not to use anymore) would take away the stigma of block evasion. In my opinion the new account, MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), has a good record, and it would be better to continue with that one. EdJohnston (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think that Mqschmidt was blocked for creating articles about projects specifically associated with Michael Q. Schmidt. I think that MichaelQSchmidt has spent his entire time on this encyclopedia promoting himself in exactly the same fashion. I also think that Michael Schmidt is responsible for abusively employing over a dozen sockpuppet accounts to promote himself on this encyclopedia and that he cannot be trusted not to do so again. I think this user will say and do whatever he thinks is necessary to preserve his account so that he may continue to lobby to preserve and promote his own article. Unblocking the old account or allowing him to continue to abuse the encyclopedia with the new one is an action unsupported by policy or past arbitration. I think it would be unwise to take either course. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• And this is not a case for User:Mqschmidt being the puppetmaster behind User:MichaelQSchmidt. That issue was settled by the puppetmaster himself when he admitted to controlling both accounts. This is a case for User:L.L.King as the puppetmaster behind all accounts. One need only examine the contributions for one of King's socks and the contributions for Mqschmidt to see that both users edited the same articles, in the same way and with the same POV. Why this evidence is being disregarded in favor of unblocking one of these accounts is beyond me. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The rationale for unblocking Mqschmidt is for the account to be retired, the MichaelQSchmidt account is behaving well under a fresh start and should not be targeted as block evasion. The new MQS is in the process of verifying his identity, do you also think L.L.King stole his driver license? King, Mqschmidt and any socks are history - you're welcome to scrutinize this new account for wrongdoing though - do you have any specific problems (diffs) with the actions of MichaelQSchmidt, who has made a full account of his history and current presence? Franamax (talk) 08:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I've confirmed the ticket with OTRS. MQS is who he claims to be. I'm going to have to look into his edits to determine whether or not this should be considered evading a block or not. The fact remains, he was blocked with account creation disabled and he created another account. If he is, as Cumulus Clouds states, continuing the same edit pattens, then this is not a matter of unblocking Mqschmidt, rather one of blocking MichaelQSchmidt. I'm going to request a checkuser verify whether or not MQS and LLKing are the same. As far as the likelihood that they live near one another, that's irrelevant. Checkusers can distinguish between one person pretending to be two and two people living within close proximity to one another. LaraLove|Talk 15:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• I've already opened a case here. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• SIDEBAR QUESTION Just for my own edification, and I'm not saying this is the case (because I don't know), but can a checkuser determine a difference between people working at the same location? I ask because I have made edits from a military installation where 12000+ people have the same/similar IP addresses or those who use the same network provider? It might be one of those things to emphasize the difference between people who log in anonymously and those who log in under a name. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• It depends. I don't know how much detail they like to give out, as you don't want to educate the sockpuppeters. From what I understand, they receive a range of information in their checks that gives details on various things. For your example, on a base where all the computers are probably the same, I think it would be difficult to distinguish between users. Let's just hope we don't have a lot of editors getting paid to edit Wikipedia when it's not part of their job description... or even if it were... but that's a whole other discussion. :p LaraLove|Talk 05:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

CRUX OF THE CASE: I think LLKING and MICHAELQSCHIMDT are the same person. LLKING had many socks, a few dozen, looking at some show they have similar interests, add deleted edits, and the fact MichaelQSchmidt was created two days after the LLKING block, and I'm pretty certain they are the same person. Besides, MICHAELQSCHMIDT's argument is he's "making a clean start" and should not be blocked. So that is the question, should we treat him as a block-evading-sock or under clean-start rules? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

MichaelQSchmidt (the new one) has been quite open about having hired an associate (LLKing) to edit Wikipedia on his behalf, quite open about how big of a mistake this was, quite open about his early misbehaviour under the Mqschmidt account, and quite open about his regret and determination to make a fresh start. I think we should take that at face value and scrutinize only the new MQS account activity, which I think is acceptable beyond some frustration at being pursued for past transgressions.

In off-line discussions, I advised MQS to be as open as possible about the past, which I believe he has done, and advised him to contribute to areas of interest outside of his own personal history, reading his contribs, it looks like he is trying to do that too. I'll need to look at the latest edits in more depth, on its face, it looks like Cumulus Clouds is bird-dogging his edits.

To the present case, if MQS is making a clean start, his edits should be judged on that basis. I believe the CU request was denied as stale. Unless there are some new allegations or new evidence of misconduct, I think this should be closed as "unproven". I'll take a little harder look now to see if I'm wrong :) Franamax (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I said I'd look harder, just remembered so now I've done it a second time. In contribs after 24Jun08 I see nothing controversial, edits revolve around The Gong Show. There is no indication of disruption or odd account contribs on any pages edited that I can see (Brian Posehn is being hit hard by IPs of all stripes), and MQS edits all appear to be good faith.

The glaring exception here is on The Gong Show and related talk page, where it appears Cumulus Clouds is reverting MQS declaring "under investigation for sockpuppetry" as a reason and speaking of "attempting to write yourself into an article". I'm unable to find that instance and I've asked CC for clarification on their talk. It's a serious accusation if true, and if false, I can understand that it would be intolerable to have hanging against me. Notable also is MQS's attempts at discussion and peaceful resolution. If this guy's a sock, he's a pretty fluffy one, with nary a bad-hand in sight.

We need to resolve this one way or the other, if Cumulus Clouds has something specific and ongoing, I'm happy to be brought up to speed. I tried to look closely, maybe not closely enough, but I'm not seeing it. Franamax (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Nor am I. Why isn't this closed already? Admins, if you please. There is no evidence to back up such accusations. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well several administrators have already stated their doubts about MQS being a separate and unique account. Your inability to accept the mountain of evidence here won't persuade anyone to close the case prematurely. The IP in L.L.King's original checkuser case has made numerous edits among the socks of L.L.King and specifically to the pages which that user had created and maintained. That IP then posted a comment in June which MQS then went back and revised the signature for, indicating he had made it. This, to me, screams sockpuppetry and I'm sure that once the Checkuser is finally run on that IP against MQS' account it will demonstrate that they are linked and that these are all being run by the same person. L.L.King is not a real person, Michael Schmidt's ownership of cinemapress.biz should prove as much. Michael Schmidt has been abusing multiple accounts on this encyclopedia since August of last year, if not much earlier. This case should be, if anything, closed as confirmed and MQS should be blocked because it is clear he has not interest in editing any articles that don't promote himself or his projects. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• CC, I have given a lot of thought to my response and I think the best response is a point-by-point discussion similar to Shalom's above.

1. Several admins may have expressed doubts, but that is far from consensus on the issue. Many others have expressed support for MQS. Accordingly, the only conclusion at this time, in my humble opinion, is "no consensus"
2. Respectfully, please stop making comments directly about users (including myself). Reasonable people can disagree about a subject without either party accusing the other of an "inability to accept the mountain of evidence". If you have a problem with my actions, please feel free to discuss.
3. No one is trying to initiate a premature close. There are few (3) other sockpuppet cases still open that are older than this. Most are closed long before this.
4. Perhaps I missed it, but the edit to which you allude by an IP in LLKing's sockpuppet group is a mystery and you have not yet cited it with a diff. Please explain or provide such a link.
5. Your request for a checkuser has already been denied along with your subsequent appeal. Further edits could be construed as forum shopping.
6. People are permitted to edit Wikipedia in whatever matter they deem appropriate as long as they meet WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:OR (This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit). Their interests are irrelevant as long as their edits are neutral. People on Wikipedia tend to edit in subjects in which they are interested (probably why The Simpsons has such an extensive database). Those that are not oriented towards popular subjects tend to not have as much input. This is a byproduct of the Wikipedia construct and has no "cure". That said, it isn't "wrong" for Mr. Schmidt to make updates to projects in which he is interested or involved as long as they meet WP policies. As far as I can see, Mr. Schmidt's edits aren't biased, are well-referenced, and meet all criteria for inclusion. To put this in perspective, if I or another admin made such a change, would you object? If not, then why can't he make such a change?

— BQZip01 — ^talk 19:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Alright, first of all, subsequent requests weren't denied they were ignored. The initial checkuser request also wasn't denied, it was listed as stale and hasn't yet been run against the IP. To respond to your question, the contributions for MichaelQSchmidt's IP here indicate that they were editing amongst L.L.King's socks and that they later posted a comment as MichaelQSchmidt, which he then logged in as and changed the signature line for. This is damning evidence for any argument that these aren't the same user and it belies his claim that he intends to edit productively. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• For instance, here is blocked sockpuppet "Cinemapress" vandalizing Stars are Blind after their edits for Paris in Jail: The Music Video were removed. Here is that IP reinserting the same vandalism after it was reverted by Icewedge. Here it is again and here they are restoring the deleted text originally inserted by the sockpuppet and here is LL King restoring that same information several months later. These are all obviously linked to the same IP because they are being used by the same user, who has now confirmed his identity as Michael Schmidt. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

1. This belongs in the evidence section, not here. Why didn't you show us this earlier?
2. The IP in question was certainly blocked, but the IP was blocked almost 6 months ago...and the block expired five months ago. This IP is permitted to edit on Wikipedia. Furthermore, MQS renounces all prior acts by himself and his publicist.
3. Related to #2, when, in your opinion, can anyone make a clean start under your criteria? He hasn't made any disruptive edits since.
4. I've been blocked before and I make no bones about it. I was attempting to revert vandalism. Are all of my edits forever suspect because of that? I didn't know the rules then, but I know them now and haven't made that mistake again. Same with MQS. Where is the problem? — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
5. I would like to hear MQS's thoughts on this.

— BQZip01 — ^talk 21:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, so apparently the IP check was already run back in January and confirmed that this IP is L.L.King's. This would mean, therefore, that MichaelQSchmidt is L.L.King and has been abusively editing this encyclopedia for over 9 months now. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• And to respond to (4), you were blocked for 3RR, but the difference between you and Michael Schmidt is that you didn't register a horde of sockpuppet accounts to try and abuse process and game the system with vote stacking and multiple reverts. This is what separates a normal user from a block evading and abusive puppetmaster. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) CC, there are reasons that CU's are carefully chosen, I'd imagine that one of them is that they don't jump to conclusions like you do. IP addresses are assigned to connections, not people, they don't tattoo one on your elbow when you're born. Checkusers look at a lot of different evidence, they don't just seize on the one most convenient.

Your continued use of the phrase "block evading and abusive puppetmaster" doesn't make it so, no matter how often you stamp it onto the wiki. Where is your evidence of current abuse? We all know the story about the previous accounts, two different interpretations are out there - they were two different people, or they are the same. But your endless repetition is not going to make that other person vanish, we have no particularly reliable way right now of knowing the difference.

So again, since MQS has given an explanation, disavowed previous actions and firmly vowed to play within the rules from now on, what is your problem? I noticed you skipped over BQZip's question about clean starts, and I see you still haven't answered my question on your talk page - where did MQS attempt to promote himself on The Gong Show? You can't just keep repeating stuff, work with us here. Franamax (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• I don't tend to answer your questions since they don't usually add anything productive to the conversation. You've decided to jump in here and agitate on behalf of BQZip01 and MQS without a shred of proof to support your case. You're now trying to argue that I can't demonstrably prove that L.L.King and MQS are the same person even though their IPs are now linked. You've claimed that since IPs aren't assigned at birth, there's no way to prove they are the same person. Well, all of the evidence (which is overwhelming, by the way) taken together verifiably proves these accounts are all operated by the same person. They have the same agenda, they edit the same articles and they edit from the same location. There are no other standards that we have by which to judge sockpuppet accounts, and this meets all of them. Burying your head in the sand and trying to wave your arms around by asking for even further proof won't erase the massive pile of evidence we've already accumulated here.

• Michael Schmidt has now asked for a "clean start" because it is the only option left to him that will postpone his indefinite block. He tries to claim that he won't abusively edit this encyclopedia anymore and that he intends to follow the rules from now on. His edits to his own article and to The Gong Show (a television show he appears in) demonstrate the same pattern of promotional editing that he used under L.L.King. He has not edited a single article outside of the scope of either this dispute or his own work since the day he registered in August 2007. He's now had over a dozen accounts blocked as sockpuppets and wants us to believe that he intends to make a clean start with this one. Call me a cynic, but I'm not going to take him at his word. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to answer my unproductive questions. Here's three more:

• His edits to his own article versus this. How many edits do you count?
• and to The Gong Show You specifically accused him of "attempting to write yourself into an article" [1] and I see you haven't struck that. Diff please? (Followup question: "promotional editing"? He's writing about what he knows and trying to contribute - what's the problem?)
• He has not edited a single article outside of... So what? He's here now with an account used since 10Jan08, with not a single problematic edit that I can see. Have a look at Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Clean_start_under_a_new_name - I don't see how you can claim the user is a ban-evader when the user has been so clear about making a fresh start.

Thanks for your time! Franamax (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• How about questions like this where he offers to help build his own article in BQZip01's userspace. Considering we now have evidence he wrote the original version of that page, that looks quite a bit like abusive sockpuppetry to me. And as for the questions about a clean start, that usually only applies to people who voluntarily quit their accounts with negative track records, not users who have been indefinitely blocked on 3 separate occasions for engaging in abusive sockpuppetry. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

J-uhh! Did you read what's on the page? Have a look at this perhaps. How is that remotely not in full compliance with Wikipedia policy? The very fact you can look at it pretty much proves the point. Where's the "abusive" part? And since this user has an OTRS ticket to confirm his identity, where's the "sockpuppet" bit? Franamax (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• We already know he is a sockpuppet of L.L.King. He has now attempted to perform the same edits that he has under his former accounts. The OTRS confirmation of his identity does not help his case but instead confirms that he was the person operating all those accounts all along. This, in turn, helps clarify L.L.King's editing patterns which were always centered around Michael Schmidt's projects and those of his close associates. It also wouldn't be a great leap for us to presume that he was being paid by those people to create those articles. This account therefore exists solely to promote this person (in contradiction to WP:COI and WP:SPA). The burden of proof you're asking for (which I imagine involves a video camera recording them logging in at home) is completely unreasonable. Any objective person would be able to see that all of these accounts are linked and that they have only a single purpose on this encyclopedia. That, perhaps, is one of the more egregious abuses they've engaged in to date. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• And the guideline requires edits to be neutral, which Michael Schmidt clearly has not been. He has referenced his own resume in his own article and wrote (unsourced) paragraphs about family life which were highly POV. Again, this user intends only to edit within the scope of themselves or their projects and has not made a single neutral edit to any article outside of that scope. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Oh geez, Cumulus, c'mon! We do not "already know" MQS is a sock-puppet of L.L.King - remember that "Suspected" bit in the page title? I don't see a "confirmed" stamp here yet, though I do appreciate the rhetoric.

And more to the point, your second-last post above posted a link which you said looks like "abusive sockpuppetry". I pointed out it's full compliance with policy and asked you to explain, which I see you neglected to do. Is that another one of those unproductive questions I keep asking? Franamax (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser results

MichaelQSchmidt has not indulged abusive sockpuppetry, so says checkuser Alison. LaraLove|Talk 04:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well Alison and Thatcher have both already said they don't have records on the L.L.King IP so the only address that would come up in a checkuser is that IP. Alison's answer on "engaging in abusive sockery" doesn't clarify if MQS is now using or has ever used this IP. However, the evidence from a previous checkuser IP request has linked L.L.King to MQS' IP address, as shown above. I don't understand how Alison's conclusions could override that evidence, but maybe she can explain them further. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• So it appears that she's saying MQS has not recently registered or logged in under any alt accounts after logging in with his current account. That's not new nor is it relevant. Again, they've both already said that a checkuser request cannot be run on L.L.King since that IP is too old. So MQS would not be linked to L.L.King in a checkuser report. She stated that it hasn't ever engaged in abusive sockpuppetry as far as she could tell, but this should be taken with the important caveat that, again, the L.L.King IP is stale. Relying strictly on previous checkuser requests, we can verifiably link L.L.King's IP to MichaelQSchmidt's IP and demonstrably prove that they have both logged in from the same location. This, taken together with the whois reports for cinemapress.biz (LLKing's website) and mqschmidt.com (MichaelQSchmidt's website) present a persuasive case for sockpuppetry. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Thank you Lara, Alison and Thatcher (among others) for your efforts on this and consideration of public and private information to arrive at the result. CC, I'd still be interested in your answer to my most recent question above, how exactly does openly declaring a COI cast one as abusive towards Wikipedia? And the other open question of where exactly you detected MQS inserting his own name into The Gong Show, curious that. I suppose we'll leave that for another day? Meanwhile, thanks all for the diligent efforts and regards! (And I've just emailed MQS to say - better not screw up now! :) Franamax (talk) 05:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Alison checked it against the IP listed in the previous request for L.L.King, I believe. Regardless, there is no proof and stating it as something "we already know" is not constructive. I recommend opening an RFC. LaraLove|Talk 05:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• That's not how I read it. Maybe you should ask her to clarify it, since she won't respond to my requests. Also, I would ask you to rectify her conclusions with the evidence above in determining whether or not this is a sockpuppet of L.L.King. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Closing

I am convinced that User:MichaelQSchmidt (MQS) is the same person as User:L.L.King. There is no doubt that LLKing was a puppetmaster. However, MQS states he is trying to make a fresh start and two CUs did not find any recent abuse by this user. Therefore, I am giving a MQS a stern warning to stay on the straight and narrow--I will not hesitate to block for future disruption/socking/etc as appropriate to the situation. User:Cumulus Clouds may want to file an RFC on MQS as LaraLove suggested. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

---