Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Xxdisneyxfanxx

User:Justlit

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

 James   Luftan  contribs 19:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

First notice how both of their usernames are Disney related.
 * Evidence

Justlit adds disney related content: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Justlit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Laila_Richard_Sadeq According to this Miley hilary is a new user, editting on a improperly listed AfD, supporting the suspected sockpuppeteer. Notice how they both try to manipulate the time.(so far as two months back!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Xxdisneyxfanxx According to that, the user lives in Florida and England.(?)

They have day old accounts, but tons of userboxes.

Both accounts were created minutes after the AfD began. This evidence is overwhelming, and they both (sloppily) try to manipulate the system. I will request for checkuser once somebody responds.  James   Luftan  contribs 19:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments


 * You don't need to waste the checkusers' time. This is plainly obvious by the writing styles at the AFD and the fact that they have not edited any other articles.  I would block one account indefinitely and the other account for five days, until the AFD closes. Shalom Hello 19:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks, Shalom. This is my first sock case so I wasn't sure what to do. Unfortunately I'm not an administrator, so can you block one for me?

Thanks,  James   Luftan  contribs 19:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is User:Justlit is the sock puppeter and the other 2 are his puppets. See discussion at Articles for deletion/Laila Richard Sadeq for further details 3tmx 20:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is probably correct, but for that we would need a checkuser IMO. I can't block anyone because I'm not an admin either.  (I just like to examine the evidence and recommend how the admins should respond.) Shalom Hello 20:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But why would Justlit nominate his own article for AfD?  James   Luftan  contribs 20:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Added Justlit  James   Luftan  contribs 21:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why Justlit effectivel;y nominated his own article:

I think they may have thought it had already been nominated (when it had just been flagged for notability).Its a possibility they were trying to make it look like an archived discussion as they pasted from an archived discussion, (although this was changed) - could explain the weird thing with the dates too. I don't think whoever is responsible totally new what they were doing, but had a good go. I'm 99.9% certain that he is the puppet master. One of the suspected sock puppets was created 10 min after his changes to the AFD - enough time to get a load of userboxes and create a sock puppet. Bit of a coincidence that another person was looking at the particular page at that time, made the same mistake of thinking it had been nominated for deletion, then decided to make themselves a page and contribute  3tmx 23:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Also

On Justlit's very first edit to the AFD he formats his text to make it look like he's struck through a previous edit - like hes thought about the proposed deltion and changed his position from clean up to keep - what a joker. Block 'em. 3tmx 23:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * According to Woddup, he copied from a previous AfD: "Comment: Justlit appears to have copied the first few lines of Articles for deletion/Alexa Nikolas. WODUP 12:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)".  James   Luftan  contribs 23:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * These are obvious throwaway socks created for the AfD. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)