Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Grant.Alpaugh


 * The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.  

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 07:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
This user has been consistent in harassing other users in order to accomplish their goals. They have violated Wikipedia policies by being incivil and chooses to criticise the editor instead of the edits. Further there is a practically clear-cut case of sock puppetry, and at minimum meat puppetry (account Spydy13))

Desired outcome
For the sock to be properly investigated as I believe there's been an abuse of multiple accounts, further due to the pattern of disruption (ie 11 blocks on puppet master), that indef blocks are warranted. Otherwise the user must be able to contribute without frustrating other editors by unneeded reversions and to discuss edits civilly with others first, not after controversial edits.

Description
The block log of the master account shows an impressive history of harassment and edit warring, particularly in articles related to soccer.

Evidence of disputed behavior

 * 1
 * 2
 * 3

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:NPA
 * WP:HAR
 * WP:WAR
 * WP:SOCK ; WP:MEAT
 * WP:CON

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

 * 1
 * 2

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * Nja 247 07:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 *  Grsz 11  12:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * Morry32 (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Coldmachine Talk 08:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

View by involved Grsz11
I came first got involved in Major League Soccer articles (hereafter MLS) on April 1. My first action: warning Grant for edit-warring. . I became more involved in the articles on April 7, helping fix MOS errors (links in headers) at 2009 Major League Soccer season that Grant was edit-warring against because "It's what we did last year".

I edited later on April 16, because I saw a discussion about using templates so the league standings could be transcluded on a few club season articles that existed. In that discussion, Grant was openly hostile, making accusations at other editors, and claiming that it shouldn't be changed because it had been like this (the old, no template way) for three years that he has been involved.

shows a series of Grant edit-warring, despite various consensus(es) in favor of what he was reverting. He was blocked on April 14 for edit-warring at 2009 Seattle Sounders FC season after continously removing templates becasue he opposed to their usage. On April 16, he was blocked for a week for edit-warring at the 2009 MLS article after reverting various different edits made by myself, and. He was unblocked at 02:46 April 18 because he "promised to be a good boy". At the exact same minute that he requested this last unblock, was created, who then professed his opposition to templates at the talk page. Grant and Spydy were blocked just an hour after the unblock when I pointed out the (very obvious) sockpuppetry. Grant claimed the other use was his brother who wanted to take part in the discussion as well. The two accounts have maintained the same position on various arguments at Template talk:2009 Major League Soccer season table and Template talk:2009 Major League Soccer Western Conference table, see Suspect sock puppets/Grant.Alpaugh. Most recently, the two accounts both edit-warred at Template:2009 Major League Soccer season table.

Grant has maintained a hostile, abusive attitude towards other users who have not been involved on these pages as long as he has. He shows a ownership attitude, and that only his opinion is the correct way. He has been condesending to these lesser-involved editors (including myself) and has engaged in repeated edit-warring to surpress their opinions and the consensus they have achieved.  Grsz 11  16:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' ''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Outside view by
Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by
Users who endorse this summary:

Summary
The user has been indefinitely blocked per WP:SOCK. Nja 247 16:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.