Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Long Island Lyn/Archive

07 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I'm interested in knowing if this discussion has any sockpuppetry in it. I have no specific information that any of these accounts are sockpuppets, though. Please let me know if a checkuser check turns up anything.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I had taken part in the same discussion with Mike and apparently both of us have raised an eyebrow on this one. The suspicion is that 3 out of 4 of these editors have very little history before partaking in this discussion in particular and confusing categorization in general. They've sort of come out of nowhere to team up on this matter; in fact, the IP even says "I work with Long Island Lyn and he sometimes proofreads my edits before I post". At the least, it might be a case of WP:CANVASSING. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, as I mentioned when I raised this on Mike's talk page, for the past four days User:69.46.35.69 has been devoted solely to defending and populating Target's categories, and in many cases, attacking editors who have raised concerns about them. Target's talk page has become so heavy with redlinked XfD notices I believe he may be abandoning his ID and resuming the battle under this new identity. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, there is specific evidence for meat puppetry, at the very least: see the piling on at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_December_30, specifically, the comment from the IP here where he writes " Also, don't expect Lyn to respond anytime soon his work duties (trip back East this week) and family don't leave him much time." and here "I work with Long Island Lyn and he sometimes proofreads my edits before I post." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . With all due respect, if you have no specific information that any of these accounts are sockpuppets, why did you file an SPI? The basis for any SPI (let alone a CU request) must be suspicion, not apparent curiosity. WilliamH (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Because I think there's a good chance that one or more are sockpuppets. But I don't have checkuser capabilities, so I'm asking to see if someone can do that for me. I, User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, and User:Shawn in Montreal all think there might be something fishy going on, since there is a multipronged attack on my credibility going on from those accounts, and also perhaps from User:208.54.38.151 (which I would also like checked). See also User_talk:Mike_Selinker. It just looks odd, that's all. If this isn't the place where I take such concerns, please let me know where is.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I want to see evidence - supported with diffs and log entries explaining how the accounts a) belong to the same person and b) are abusive before CheckUser is considered, and as the person least familar with the situation, I cannot be expected to establish your argument for this on your behalf. I am also not permitted to publicly associate IP addresses with accounts. From the evidence suggested so far, meatpuppetry may be a more likely explanation than sockpuppetry anyway. WilliamH (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've looked at this a bit, and while it's not immediately clear to me whether this is socking or meatpuppetry, the accounts are clearly linked in some capacity. Having said that, these accounts have been quiet for nine days, so it's possible they all just.. went away. Relist if they come back. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)