Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/L.L.King

L.L.King

• L.L.King (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• MichaelQSchmidt (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Code letter: F

• Supporting evidence: This is a second check following the block of all accounts here. I'm not sure if these cases should be merged into one, or if a new case should be submitted and I would appreciate a clerk's assistance in determining that.

• A sockpuppetry case is currently open against this user here. They registered 2 days after L.L.King's original socks were discovered and all were indefinitely blocked. Many of the tools used to locate and block the sockpuppets were novel to that user at that time and they have since adjusted their editing patterns to obfuscate further detection, but this user remains focused on promoting and preserving the article at Michael Q. Schmidt which was created and (until an AFD) edited entirely by L.L.King and his socks. This user's responses to this investigation and their edits have been substantially similar to those made by L.L.King and his socks.

• This user has already admitted to being a sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked User:Mqschmidt and will fail a checkuser for that account. I believe that User:L.L.King and his socks (including User:MikeTheModel) are also linked to that account as well. Please review the sockpuppet case for more information and the voluminous evidence against this user. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

 Clerk note: moved :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 06:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that checkuser and clerks should look at the entire discussion at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/L.L.King (2nd) before accepting that the recent contributions of MichaelQSchmidt are in any way abusive. Of course, if L.L.King and MichaelQSchmidt are found to be the same person, that would be bad news. In that case those of use who have spoken up in support of MichaelQSchmidt would have to revise our thinking. EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• So you're saying the checkuser shouldn't be run unless it proves that you're right? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not opposing a checkuser run. I'm suggesting that your above statement, if you were intending to provide a neutral summary of the the SSP report, left out some of the views presented. If you were intending it only as a personal statement, I believe it was a success. EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Disregarding the above, checkuser is necessary here to assist in determining what course of action to take regarding the MQS account. LaraLove|Talk 06:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Michael Schmidt sent me an email relevant to this issue. I'm waiting for his permission before sharing the contents more generally. EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Many involved received the same email. The information contained therein is irrelevant. The checkuser report will identify such information. LaraLove|Talk 14:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Unless Alison saved her previous results, L.L.King is too  Stale to check. You'll have to decide what to do about MichaelQSchmidt without technical assistance. Thatcher 03:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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/L.L.King}} 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.

L.L.King

• L.L.King (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• AnotherSearcher (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• SomeSlasher (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ExtraordinaryActor (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ZeeToAaa (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ManicAttack (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Cinemapress (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Anypose (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• CelebPress (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 76.174.60.251 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Code letter: G
• Supporting evidence: IP rq for article creation, all accounts making extensive edits to that article, which was subsequently created by the sock SomeSlasher: SomeSlasher, L.L. King, ZeeToAaa, ZeeToAaa 2. Edits from most accounts to Paris Hilton removing trivia tag over paragraph about music video: ExtraordinaryActor, L.L. King, ZeeToAaa, SomeSlasher. Edits from all accounts to my talk page attempting to demonstrate consensus. Creation and extensive edits to Omovies, the production company for the music video, from all accounts. Extensive edits from all accounts to Allan Murray (actor) and Sean Haines (actor), the two men who control Omovies.

This user created this account 2 days after a request for article creation was declined. He then registered his first account and began making extensive edits to existing articles to promote this music video. When trivia tags were placed on the popular culture section of Paris Hilton, this user began making attacks against me using his main account and each of his socks to give the illusion of greater consensus. Each of the remarks left on my talk page are nearly identical and present with the same writing style and POV for Wikipedia guidelines. This user then began canvassing for support from User:SchuminWeb, User:Wanderer57 and User:JohnBiancato, among others. He left messages on all three talk pages claiming that a request for checkuser would fail since all users originate in his apartment complex, where he has previously said those accounts belong to "associates around his city," and left the following explanation on the outstanding sock puppet case against him:

"I have never denied speaking to friends and associates about the heavy-handed and biased edits of a person on Wiki who calls himself "Cumulus Clouds". Over a few day period, these conversations have taken place in a grocery stores, local diners, in the laundry room, outside a union hall, at a gas station... lots of places. It rankles that someone so abuses Wiki for his own ends. ANd I voiced my concerns to many people outside of Wiki. And here on Wiki I wrote to friend user SchuminWeb to thank him more recently thanked for advice and apolgize for involving him in my disagreement with this Cloud person. I also wrote similarly to friend user Wanderer57. I voiced a my recent suspicion that some of my own neighbors might well be among those trying to undo Clouds vandalisms. HOWEVER.... that some of these new editors may know me... that they may have come on board Wiki within a short period of time due to my discussions outseide in the world... that they apparently agree that user Cumulus Clouds is abusing the Wiki process... that they have come forward to patch the holes he has made... that they are likely sitting back and watching this discussion... that some of them could even be my neighbors, does not in any way mean that they are puppets. It does mean they are constructive and not destructive. It does mean that they came forward to take action against an abuser." L.L.King (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for this exhaustive list, but I feel that all the evidence should be presented so that this request is not taken as a reaction to an isolated incident, but rather to prolonged demonstration of sockpuppet activity. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed - L.L.King (talk · contribs) = Moonkissed9999 (talk · contribs), Cinemapress (talk · contribs), Anypose (talk · contribs), ManicAttack (talk · contribs), ZeeToAaa (talk · contribs), SomeSlasher (talk · contribs), ExtraordinaryActor (talk · contribs), AnotherSearcher (talk · contribs), CelebPress (talk · contribs), SynnManagement (talk · contribs), MikeTheModel (talk · contribs)

- Alison ^❤ 15:58, 7 January 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.