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

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Sockpuppets confirmed by checkuser: Case information. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All accounts were created within a small period of time, have similar editing patterns, have nearly identical user pages and all support each other in trying to form consensus. Each have made edits to Paris Hilton removing a trivia tag with identical explanation: ExtraordinaryActor, L.L. King, ZeeToAaa, SomeSlasher. All have made edits specifically to the section of the article dealing with a music video parody of Paris Hilton called "Paris in Jail," for instance:

SomeSlasher, L.L. King, ZeeToAaa, ZeeToAaa 2.

*Editors concerned with the same issue (IE: preventing Wiki vandalism by User: Cumulus Clouds, and interest in Paris Hilton) would very well have similar editing patterns. Identical user pages? There are thousands of user pages that say or say less or say similar things. Just as in his editing, User: Cumulus Clouds is voicing opinion. Opinion is not fact. L.L.King (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Was it a surprise that two related articles might recieve attention at the same time? Apparently not... just as you yourself are tieing three or four articles together in this great conspiracy.. articles that are all already inter-related. And no big surprise that none of this began until you decided to remove cohesive informations as "trivia", and the tag the disconnected remaining elements as trivia... having just turned the article into just that. As a newcomer to Wiki, even I have looked to previous edits to see what explanation or reason to give. That they all tried to repair your vandalism, and used the same terms to do so... not at all surprising. Sensible actually. L.L.King (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

L.L. King addressed AnotherSearcher as a "friend" on his talk page, and all accounts have made almost identical remarks on my talk page.

*Anyone who stands up to a tyrant such as yourself, is my friend. Feel free to take that sentence out of context as well, should doing so serve your own purposes. L.L.King (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Anyone visiting your talk page, newbie or not, who agreed with the remarks made there, might certainly make similar comments... and even more likely to quote other's comments as Wiki newcomers. It is interesting to note that NO ONE has contradicted the claims of your editing with bias. You remove attention from yourself by indicting others with a fabricated conspiracy. Your actions are even more strongly contentious. L.L.King (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last, each user has made edits to Omovies, the company that produced "Paris in Jail", as can be seen in the edit history. Activity at Omovies increased for all accounts after Tony Sidaway placed a prod notice on that article for being only promotional in content, with each account trying to expand the article to try to save it from deletion.

*Isn't that what we're supposed to do? Improve an article to make it worthy of Wiki? You're making that a crime now? L.L.King (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*And someone placing a tag on an article calls for the article to be improved. You're now using that improvement as an evidence of a deeper conspiracy? Seems like you are supporting yet another action that discredits or removes informations in support of your own opinion. L.L.King (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Each of these accounts has also made extensive edits to Paris in Jail: The Music Video to promote this product. In addition all accounts have either started or made extensive edits to Allan Murray (actor) and Sean Haines (actor), the two men who control Omovies.

*Your use of the word extensive is opinion. Your own edit history has show MAJOR extensive edits to articles all over Wiki. You have removed entire sections of various articles because you "felt" they did not belong. You have pushed your opinion all over Wiki. That you have been caught and acted upon at the Paris and Paris-related articles just shows that you can not continue your actions forever. There is a check and balance. Wiki is not about you. It is about making things better. L.L.King (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*A pattern of continued Wiki abuse: Cumulus Clouds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) L.L.King (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*... it seems that Murray and Haines aren't allowed to be writen about on Wiki? And why is it impossible that their articles get improved at the same time as related articles? Is that not what we are here to do? To improve Wiki one must improve ALL aspects of an article and related articles. Yes? Or is your example of repeated deletion and vandalism under the guise of misintrepeted guideline the example we must follow? L.L.King (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of User:ManicAttack, that user registered as a new account on Monday the 31st and immediately began making edits about issues they would not otherwise have known about as a new user. This account's only edits are to almost entirely to my talk page protesting the addition of a trivia tag to Paris Hilton. This is probably an attack account controlled by the puppeteer.

*Edits about issues they would not have otherwise have known? Well... I checked ManicAttack... ManicAttack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). His/her only action was to speak up. Nothing was edited. Nothing was deleted. So, you must be absolutely right here... someone came forward with the specific intent to protest your actions and point out your mistakes. What a major crime!!! Hunt them down! String them up! Burn them at the stake! Ban them from Wiki for life! (Please read a sarcastic tone in those last 5 sentences). Pointing out someone's mistakes is not an attack. Encouraging someone to rethink an opinion is not a crime. Your own use of the word "attack" seems to underscore a certain paranoia on your part. L.L.King (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Probably an attack account? God bless one more individual who came forward to protect Wiki from the likes of you. L.L.King (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

L.L.King registered on 20 August, 2007, 2 days after an article creation request for Paris Hilton: The Music Video by an anonymous IP was declined on 18 August 2007. I now suspect L.L.King is this user and he registered subsequent puppet accounts to mask his identity in order to promote this video and Omovies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cumulus Clouds (talk • contribs) 01:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User: Cumulus Clouds, has me listed as a sockpuppet of L.L.King, stating that I was one of several persons come on to do King's bidding... but I was registered a week before King. So I suppose that statement is another example of one person's opinion trying to masquerade as fact. I'll grant that my time on Wiki has been a learning experience, and I've made mistakes as I've learned, but I do no one's dirtywork. I am agreed with King though that pushing one's opinion without regard for consensus or for fact is not the way to perform under Wiki guidelines. Cinemapress (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*You can "suspect" anything you wish. The items you keep calling "evidence" only shows a pattern of continued Wiki improvement by concened individuals who came forward when your mis-use of the system was presented Cumulus Clouds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Their edits have been laudable. Yours have not. Now THAT is evidence. L.L.King (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Where L.L.King has previously claimed these accounts were "friends and associates" scattered throughout the city, he now claims they are all local ips originating from within his apartment complex and thus would fail checkuser. I believe that this confirms these are all sock puppets being used abusively by the puppetmaster. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Again.... one can twist things to espouse one's own opinion can't one....? 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. Every edit they have made has been an improvement. Cloud continues to use Wiki voice opinion. L.L.King (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I believe that all these accounts are employees of, or otherwise associated with promoting Omovies, or are the same person using several accounts abusively to the same ends. If a user has access to Checkuser, this may yield further evidence but I don't believe it's necessary in this case. Thank you.

Update: Leon L. King runs a movie review blog called "Cinemapress." The url is here: http://www.cinemapress.biz/id38.htm

Any references or links to this site inserted by this user or others should be removed and the users treated with scrutiny as possible sockpuppets for L.L.King. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*A wonderful supposition. And if I did not know how wrong you were, I might even agree with you myself. You have dredged up a wonderful circumstantial case to prove your delusions... but your evidencea are conjecture and opinion. L.L.King (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*I have associates around my home and city with whom I have discussed the Paris page and related pages... associates with whom I have discussed you and your actions that so negatively affect Wiki. YOU are the reason that Wiki so often gets bad press. It is not at all surprising that others came on board to keep an eye on you. So yes, I can imagine that a number of accounts were opened withing a short period of time, and yes I can see that these individuals have done their best as Wiki amateurs to hold back the machinations of a Wiki abuser such as yourself. They are individuals, with the constructive purpose of truth. I may have encouraged individuals to come on board and take a stand for truth, but YOU are the one abusing Wiki using your greater knowledge and expertise of the Wiki systems. L.L.King (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*I have told no one what to do. I gave no course of conduct nor action beyond suggesting that if they do join the ranks of Wiki users, that they keep an eye on you. Someone had to. But no one is my puppet. No one moved at my bidding. That these people read on your talk page of the wrongs you have done and then voiced similar concerns to your machinations is not at all surprising. I can not put a name to any of the users you listed, but God bless them. Nor do I know any of the hundreds or thousands who have made adjustments to the Paris page. What I can say with clear conscience is that I am proud that these others have come forward to keep an eye on Wiki. And it is quite obvious that your own actions kept them centered on the Paris and related pages. What I see is that they have each, as narrow as their field of improvement have been, been as forthright and factual and constructive in their contributions as I wish you could have been. L.L.King (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cumulus Clouds has been subtly editing (without consensus} the "Sock puppetry" page to make it say what he wishes it to say in just the manner he wants it to in order to support whatever additional allegations he wishes to make. If that is not a clear case of Wikipedia:COI, I don't know what it is. L.L.King (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no sockpuppet. I did some corrections to the Paris in Jail page, the Michael Schmidt page, and the James EVans page. Don't drag me in to this argument. I don't have the free time to spend thousands and thousands of hours on the computr to fix stuff all over wikipdia. I added some stuff in 3 places. That does not make me anybodys puppet. I think Cumulus Clouds has got way too much free time. Get a real job fellow and support afamily like the rest of us. No this is not an attack. I think you are selfish and greedy and tryingto mess with anybody who does not think like you. Ever think of going to Iraq and becoming a dictater? I hear theres an opening in Bagdad. - Anypose

Cumulus Clouds has been caught out using opinion to replace or remove fact. The members who came forward are now under attack by the person who was doing the vandalism. Their acts have been constructive. His acts have been destructive. The only "crime" he can accuse them of is being "puppets" because they came onboard and worked in similar fashion at similar times to a similar end. If they were indeed newcomers to WIki, it does not surprise that they acted alike, commented alike, and took the same interest in the vandalism being done by Cumulus Clouds. If I knew exactly who these specific individiuals were, I'd shake all their hands. L.L.King (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Confirmed that the socks on this checkuser are L.L. King. --EoL talk 22:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]