Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GroundhogTheater/Archive

Report date February 6 2009, 20:36 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

There seems to be a strange voting going on at Featured article candidates/New York State Route 382. GroundhogTheater, who edits every so often, begins going after the article, including an AFD. There, BurpTheBaby comes along, on the FAC, where he opposes deletion and personally backs up GroundhogTheater and uses the same kind of incivilty. User:Rschen7754 also filed a Wikiquette alert on GroundhogTheater who had been using some incivil language. Then almost immediately, GroundhogTheater goes after Rschen on his talk page (User talk:Rschen7754), where BurpTheBaby returns, going after Rschen once again (here) calling him paranoid and immature. GroundhogTheater keeps going on while BurpTheBaby dissapears. Today, on the FAC, UWMsports, who has been mainly active, returns using the same kind of problems that GroundhogTheater and BTB were going on about. While I cannot be sure that UWMSportrs is related to those two, but there seems to be some kind of relation between GroundhogTheater and BurpTheBaby. I am requesting investigation and a CheckUser, because if they are the same, they are votestacking my FAC.

Before I forget, BurpTheBaby and GroundhogTheater also caused the same type of problem with County Route 97 (Rockland County, New York) and its existance. See its talk page and the AFD over what went on. (Articles for deletion/County Route 97 (Rockland County, New York)). Also, in July 2008, UWMSports used the same type of incivility over the existance of Interstate 587 on Talk:Interstate 587 and - where he uses the same capitalizations. This may be what links UWMSports and GroundhogTheater together. Also, Articles for deletion/Blanchard Valley Conference (2nd nomination), all 3 make appearances on the same AFD, along with a 4th User, WoodchuckRevenge, which has a redirect from User:FatChicksNeedLoveToo, which has caused a stink on I-587 and NYSR as well.


 * Evidence submitted by Mitch 32 ( Go Syracuse )


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * User:BurpTheBaby is my husband. He thought I was being treated unfairly. Count our votes as one if you want. I'm not familiar with all of Wiki's policies so if you want him to stay out of discussions I'm in and visa versa that is fine. He will defend me if someone says something wrong though. Delete User:WoodchuckRevenge if you want. That was my old user name that I've forgotten my password too, but I haven't used it to stack votes or do anything against Wiki policies. I haven't used it in awhile anyway. I don't know User:UWMSports other than by username. I'm being honest here. If I wasn't, I would deny knowing any of these users. Thanks! --GroundhogTheater (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, please see my talk page under Route 382. BurpTheBaby doesn't deny knowing me. "Just defending my buddy" is featured. Wiki also says to assume good faith. Just because I disagree doesn't warrant bringing this here. If User:Mitchazenia had a problem with me he should have come to my talk page first which he never has done. That would be assuming good faith. Also, people on the other side of arguments sound an awful a lot alike to me too. But I respect their opinions. I haven't been out of line to anyone. The most that's happened is I used some CAPS in my argument. A user took that as yelling, but I use that to emphasis a point. It was a misunderstanding if anything. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 05:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, "_ is my brother/friend/child/spouse/etc." is a very difficult statement to prove and to defend yourself with. --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Difficult to prove on your end. Innocent until proven guilty. We use the same computer, so obviously we'll have the same IP address. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, as an administrator who has run into stuff like this before, we typically consider situations like this as sock or meatpuppets and block all but one of the accounts above. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And I'm sure meatpuppets don't admit to knowing each other either. I'm not hiding anything and I've already made it clear to BurpTheBaby to stay clear of similar AfDs/discussions where voting occurs. If it were to happen again, I would understand the account being blocked. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users
 * "User:BurpTheBaby is my husband"? Regardless of sockpuppetry, that's blatant meatpuppetry. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  05:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't blatant. Look at my talk page. He didn't deny knowing me. I'm not denying I know him now. And canvassing, use terms we all know, I'm sure I don't know wiki policy inside and out like you. Plus, if you read the whole statement above I said I can tell him to stay out of discussions/votes I'm in and visa versa. Also, it would have also been polite had the user who created this notified me of it. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 08:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Canvassing" or "meatpuppetry" = asking other Wikipedia editors/friends/spouse/relative to vote in a discussion for you. I can't argue with your second point, however. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  13:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * He came to the discussion when I showed him Rschen flipping out on me for just using capital letters. Had he told me in a polite way with a wiki link that caps aren't liked, that would have been fine. But reporting me to Wikiquette for using caps was weak. BurpTheBaby, saw the unfair allegations and jumped in as any loving husband would do. He then read my points and agreed with them. I didn't tell him to do that. I realize that looks bad, and I've told him not to do that in the future. He were unaware it was an issue at the time. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, I started talking to you on your talk page about it before I brought it to WQA. I only brought it to WQA when it was clear that our discussion was getting nowhere. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're original message wasn't very friendly to begin with. And you should have left it as that as evidenced by the wikiquette decision. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ... I guess I'm shocked at the outcome. I mean, apparently they are very confident about this, but it's still a hard pill to swallow... --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested by Mitch 32 ( Go Syracuse ) 20:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 *  — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Results GroundhogTheater claims not to know UWMSports. GHT also posted on my talk page claiming innocence. GHT claims to be the wife of BurpTheBaby. However, CU results show a very unique, very rare piece of evidence tying five accounts together: GroundhogTheater, UWMSports, BurpTheBaby, FancyMustard, and Airtuna08; with all five coming from the same computer. Have indef'd all five. Will consider reducing one block to one week upon suitable explanation from user about why not all accounts were disclosed and why knowledge of UMWSports was denied. seems to be the master account. Findings checked with two other CUs too.
 * Conclusions
 * ✅ =  =  =  =   — Rlevse •  Talk  • 22:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: New very private personal info has arrived. has been unblocked. The other 4 users are re-confirmed as socks and I've retagged them.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 02:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC) - Is this completed? If so, it will be archived withing ~24 hours. Tiptoety talk 05:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)