Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lootbrewed/Archive

08 September 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Edit warring on a school page(!) seems to be using a good hand/bad hand account at times- the 69.x address. I don't think the 23.x address is involved but it's been active in the same time period, so I'm including it. Here are diffs that show the same behavior from the three accounts: 1 2 3 4. Here are previous blankings by the 69.x address, which I think was being done entirely as "bad hand". 1 2 3. I full-protected the page for the next few days. tedder (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Added an ipv6; when this thing spilled over to my talk page the the user made a formatting edit that was reverted by another party, then ipv6 account revert-warred that. I can dig out more evidence to the ipv6 but there's certainly article overlap. tedder (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

For over two weeks, I have suspected, based on statements Lootbrewed has made about not being a new editor, that he is actually a block-evading sock. I have my suspicions as to the acuality of his previous account(s), but have no solid evidence to support my suspicions except for a few articles here and there and the type of edits made in addition to similarities in talk page comments. I suggest a sleeper-check. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh my lord, I just found this. It would have been nice if someone had notified me about it. I'm not sure whether to be pissed off or to see the humor in it. And looking at the time stamp when Tedder reported it, I can see that it was done while I was in the midst of a discussion with him on his talk page, yet he didn't say a word to me about this report. "Good hand/bad hand"? Haha, what? So let's see, I worked my tail off to expand and source that trial content... then I kept removing it? How is that even logical? And an IP reverted Winkelvi's violation of the guideline about indenting, like I tried to do previously... so that means it was me? Right. Winkelvi, you're infamous on Wikipedia so I'm sure there are lots of editors who track your antics. But what's not surprising is that Winkelvi, who was recently warned by an admin about his ongoing conflicts with many editors, felt the need to add in his two-cents even though he promised just a few hours ago to steer clear of me and to not even mention my name again. Anyway, next time someone reports me for something, at least have the courtesy to let me know about it. Lootbrewed (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Bbb23, I accept your point but I'm not sure how someone is supposed to be able to defend themself against accusations if they are not even notified that they exist. This page even says " Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. " I just happened to stumble upon this report through other edits I was making with the reporting editor. And I believe the other editor stating his belief that I am a "block-evading sock", without providing any proof whatsover, is clearly a "shot". And, according to the editing page here, it's a violation based on this warning: "Do not make accusations without providing evidence. Doing so is a personal attack and will likely be summarily removed." Just saying. But I hear you. Lootbrewed (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Evidence:
 * and, the results contained in the following two reports speak volumes in regard to the duckiness between the ipv6 account and Lootbrewed: ,.
 * In addition, other similarities between the ipv6 and Lootbrewed:
 * Both are fond of using "however" incorrectly:
 * ipv6 - (beginning of fourth sentence),  (beginning of second sentence from the bottom of the comments);
 * Lootbrewed - (beginning of second sentence from bottom of comments),  (beginning of fourth sentence from the top,  beginning of second sentence from the bottom of the comments).
 * Both are fond of bringing up what he perceives as negatives in the pasts of editors with which he finds himself embroiled in conflict and content disputes.
 * The ipv6 at AN3 and the Brian Austin Green article talk page:, ;
 * Lootbrewed at Talk:Josh Duggar:.
 * Both the ipv6 and Lootbrewed edit school-related articles
 * The ipv6: Arnprior District High School, Langstaff Secondary School
 * Lootbrewed: Taylor Allderdice High School, Millersville University of Pennsylvania, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Dutchtown High School (Georgia), St. Paul's School (New Hampshire).
 * The ipv6 account, out of the blue, mentions Megan Fox here -- Lootbrewed has edited the Megan Fox article.
 * Also note that in Lootbrewed's comments above, he never denies using a sock account. In fact, on more than one occasion, he has become practically incensed when his Lootbrewed account newbie status is brought up and has said he edited before under IP accounts numerous times before editing as Lootbrewed.  I don't know if it's policy to do so, but it might be in the best interest of full-disclosure for Lootbrewed to provide the names of the articles he has edited, the talk pages he has edited, and any noticeboards he has commented at before he created and started using the Lootbrewed account.
 * I think it's important to note that one of Lootbrewed's first edits was to write something on his user page (three minutes after first edit) . A nearly sure sign of a sock account is to rid the appearance of being a new, "red link account".  Ridding one's account of the redlink allows a sock account to fly under the radar and escape the scrutiny new users attract.  Further, new users are less likely to modify their user space until after they have spent more time in Wikipedia and have seen the user spaces of other editors.  It's something a more experienced editor would do, not someone having only edited Wikipedia for three minutes.
 * This is a very strange first edit and first article to go to for the ipv6:  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  17:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Diffs As requested,, diffs for improper use of 'however' have been added above in the list of evidence. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  01:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

, when might this be looked into? Is it not being looked into because there is a general backlog at SPI, or is there another reason? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  16:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've declined the CU request as we almost never publicly disclose the IP address of a named account. And to address Winkelvi's point, we don't do a sleeper check against one account except in very unusual circumstances that aren't present here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You're entitled to post comments in your defense on this page, but you are not entitled to take shots at other editors about issues that are wholly irrelevant to this SPI. Any more of these kinds of posts will be reverted. Finally, nothing requires an alleged sock to be notified of a case. This is not WP:ANI; the rules are different.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing evidence. Two things. First, please provide diffs for the bullet about "however". Second, we should not ask - and certainly not require - a named account to disclose publicly their IP address, and failure to do should not be held against the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing as inconclusive. The IPv6 is certainly not a new editor. I don't recognize an incorrect use of the word "however" and it looks like it us used correctly to me (shrugs)...the first link on that matter is to an offsite blog with someone's identity. Has that identity been publicly revealed on WP or was that a mistake? The evidence is not definitive enough to reach a conclusion. If there is future evidence, please refile.