Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grant.Alpaugh/Archive

Report date April 18 2009, 03:19 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

This one should be simple and to the point. On the 16th, was blocked for edit-warring at 2009 Major League Soccer season, as well as other articles because he disagreed with the use of a template to show the league standings on that article, as well as a few season club articles. Consensus on the talk page was to use the templates to make it easier, but Grant edit-warred because he didn't like them. He was blocked, requested and denied a couple of unblocks. He came back tonight and requested another unblock at 01:47 18 April. That same minute, was created. A little later, that account made a talk page edit at the 2009 MLS article, seemingly knowing all the details and picking up right where Grant left off. He used many of the same arguments:
 * Evidence submitted by  Grsz 11 
 * That fans of the teams with season article should push around the others
 * Spydy: "You just want everything to be beamed to your season articles"
 * Grant: I don't think the main MLS season article should be made to suffer just to accomodate ... the 2009 Seattle Sounders FC article


 * That the templates are difficult to use:
 * Spydy: "You 2 teams are also making it harder to update the standings"
 * Grant: It is a lot more work than is necessary

Spydy also commented "I would hope that you would all agree to revert to the system that was used for over a year with no complaints" which makes it hard to believe it truly is a new user.  Grsz 11  03:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note Grant has since been granted his unblock request, but was still blocked when the new account posted, making its action, if Grant, block evasion.  Grsz 11  03:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Patently obvious sock account, per WP:DUCK. Blocked new account indef, reblocked main account for 1 month for this little fiasco.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  03:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse that action, I was just about to do the same. Tiptoety  talk 03:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * Per Jayron. Tiptoety  talk 03:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Report date April 18 2009, 03:19 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

This one should be simple and to the point. On the 16th, was blocked for edit-warring at 2009 Major League Soccer season, as well as other articles because he disagreed with the use of a template to show the league standings on that article, as well as a few season club articles. Consensus on the talk page was to use the templates to make it easier, but Grant edit-warred because he didn't like them. He was blocked, requested and denied a couple of unblocks. He came back tonight and requested another unblock at 01:47 18 April. That same minute, was created. A little later, that account made a talk page edit at the 2009 MLS article, seemingly knowing all the details and picking up right where Grant left off. He used many of the same arguments:
 * Evidence submitted by  Grsz 11 
 * That fans of the teams with season article should push around the others
 * Spydy: "You just want everything to be beamed to your season articles"
 * Grant: I don't think the main MLS season article should be made to suffer just to accomodate ... the 2009 Seattle Sounders FC article


 * That the templates are difficult to use:
 * Spydy: "You 2 teams are also making it harder to update the standings"
 * Grant: It is a lot more work than is necessary

Spydy also commented "I would hope that you would all agree to revert to the system that was used for over a year with no complaints" which makes it hard to believe it truly is a new user.  Grsz 11  03:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note Grant has since been granted his unblock request, but was still blocked when the new account posted, making its action, if Grant, block evasion.  Grsz 11  03:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I have reverted this back to the investigation page (though I'm not sure that's how it should have been done). Jayron blocked per WP:DUCK and this was closed. Since then, he has unblocked after two other admins declined unblock requests because of a story Grant gave, saying the new account was his brother. Still, the two have only edited at the same times, and I feel it is still worth looking into. Now that both accounts are unblocked, they can and likely will be used to obtain false consensus on the above mentioned articles. At the very least, they're abusive meatpuppets that deserve blocks too.  Grsz 11  01:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I was an uninvolved party who happened to notice the commotion on my watchlist (which contains Grant's talk page because of a thank-you note that I posted there in response to kind praise back in 2007). I'm one of the two admins who reviewed and declined Grant's unblock requests before Jayron32 decided to unilaterally overrule our determinations. For the record, I view Grant's claim that during the exact minute in which he posted an unblock request, his "brother" just happened to register an account (after which he just happened to stumble upon a discussion and enter it to express Grant's exact viewpoint, citing long-term knowledge of the situation) patently absurd. Note that Grant used a similar "roommate" excuse last year.  —David Levy 02:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, Grant was caught it Spydy's autoblock. It makes sense if they share a computer, it makes sense if they're the same person. Either way, it's not legitimate contribution here.  Grsz 11  02:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Patently obvious sock account, per WP:DUCK. Blocked new account indef, reblocked main account for 1 month for this little fiasco.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  03:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse that action, I was just about to do the same. Tiptoety  talk 03:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * Per Jayron. Tiptoety  talk 03:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: in this exchange (Spydy13's first two posts, and a reply by Grsz11) Spydy13's reaction to Grsz11's comment implying that Spydy is Grant is not what I'd expect if he wasn't. Rd232 talk 04:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why was this case reopened? All it looks like is that you copied the above case from the archives. Tiptoety  talk 03:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Jayron subsequently decided that Grant's defense was "credible," reversed his determination that sock puppetry occurred, and lifted the block that had been upheld by two other administrators (including me). Jayron then apologized for failing to consider outside viewpoints and declared that he no longer knew what to believe, had recused himself from the case, and hoped that others would reexamine the situation and arrive at the correct outcome. As noted above, Grant's defense (which I find patently preposterous) is that the brand new account (registered via Grant's IP address during the same minute in which he posted an unblock request) belongs to his "brother," who just happened to sign up at that exact time, stumble upon a discussion in which Grant was involved, and enter it to express Grant's exact viewpoint (citing long-term knowledge of the situation).  Note that Grant used a similar "roommate" excuse last year.  —David Levy 07:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also note that Grant immediately resumed the edit-warring that led to his original block, and he now is citing his "brother's" concurring views as evidence of no consensus for the changes that he opposes.  (For the record, I've never edited the articles in question and have no opinions regarding their content.)  —David Levy 07:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * it doesn't actually matter whether we have two brothers editing from the same computer for the same purpose, or a single user with an imaginary brother. Per WP:FAMILY, we are entitled to treat two accounts operating from the same connection for similar purposes as a single user. Mayalld (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

both accounts re-blocked. Mayalld (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Report date July 8 2009, 09:08 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * Code letter: E
 * Code letter: E


 * Evidence submitted by George

I suspect that AfterMayAndIntoAugust may be the latest incarnation of Grant.Alpaugh, a user that has been blocked numerous times, the last time for sock puppetry. To quote Nja247, "[c]onsensus was that the user should wait substantially longer [for unblock], ie one year". My suspicion is based on the new user's edit behavior, high level of knowledge of policy for a new user, and similar edit patterns to the blocked user - often in the same category of 'Football/Soccer'; sometimes the exact same articles. Even their replies strike me as similar. The blocked user spent over a month requesting unblock on their own talk page after being blocked, and their last edit was to request a specific change to a template used on the United States men's national soccer team article, an article the blocked user edited often. The new user kicked off their edits to the same article two weeks later, becoming quite active in the article almost instantly. More recently, the user took up a long-dead discussion on a rather out of the way template that the blocked user had been discussing and edit warring prior to being blocked, re-raising the points argued by the blocked user. I think such behavior is highly suspicious, and I suspect the new user may be trying to bypass block.

I would hardly say that the main standings template on the MLS season article is an out of the way template. After the USA's success at the Confederations Cup I decided to get back into editing footy articles and wanted to use an account, after using mainly IPs previous to that. My old account, User:Aftermayintoaug was tied to a hotmail account I had long since abandoned, and I had forgotten the password, since the last edit I made with it was almost 3 years ago, I don't think that is unforgivable. I tried to get as close to my old screenname, and this is my account. I posted some questions on WT:FOOTY, and had been directed to the currently ongoing discussions. I realize that Grant.Alpaugh ruffled a lot of feathers, and the allegations of sockpuppetry make you want to be extra cautious, but I don't think I've done anything untoward, and if I have, please tell me how I can correct my behavior. AfterMayAndIntoAugust (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
 * It just strikes me as unlikely that within a few days of creating your Wikipedia user you've engaged in three discussions Grant.Alpaugh started on two different templates – here, here, and here – discussions that haven't been active since Grant.Alpaugh was blocked three months ago. Could you identify what IP address(es) you've been editing as since forgetting the password to your old user? ← George [ talk  ] 10:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't know how to go about doing that. I'm an American soccer fan and I've edited the USMNT article and the MLS article and you find that dubious?  I simply made some changes to make the 2009 article more like the 2008 article, and in doing so I noticed that the MLS standings were different from the other major leagues like the Premier League, La Liga, and Serie A.  AfterMayAndIntoAugust (talk) 10:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * ✅ =  = . Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. Tiptoety  talk 14:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Report date July 30 2009, 18:14 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by JohnnyPolo24

The IP user's comments on the USMNT talk page, a page that Grant commonly trolled, are very consistent with Grant's tone and agree with some of his previous page style preferences. A check of the WHOIS on this IP reveals the user's IP to be registered to Wright State University, which Grant stated that he attends on his user page. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * Blocked for two weeks. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Report date September 14 2009, 14:39 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

(FFS) is a seemingly new user who has edited US-related soccer (football) articles such as United States national soccer team and Template:2009 Major League Soccer season table, two of Grant's pet pages. I noticed some similarities in style and target, and brought it up to, who has interacted with Grant and his puppets in the past. He concurred that the similarities were evident and left him a message. FFS replied with this message and seemed all too familiar with Grant and the events that occured back in April. He then went to WQA and again provided information that would seem to indicate a prior knowledge of the incident, as well as more knowledge of Wikipedia stuff than a typical editor who has just been here for 10 days.  Grsz 11  14:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Grsz11


 * Additional evidence


 * When using the sock, Grant claimed to have edited from IPs for awhile before getting an account. FFS claimed the same on his userpage.  Grsz 11  14:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I'd like to point out a number of things in my defense:

1. I have committed zero violations of any wikipedia policy regarding editing behavior, i.e. I have not edit warred, been abusive, vandalized, etc.

2. The idea that I had to have been editing the encyclopedia to be familiar with its content is ridiculous. There are surely millions of people who use 2009–10 Premier League, just to use it as an example, but only a small number of account users who regularly edit the article. That does not mean that when something changes from the norm, they wouldn't notice it.

3. As my account name indicates, I take an interest in soccer. Therefore, I have looked at a lot of soccer articles, particularly relating to national team soccer. As 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification is winding down, teams have been eliminated or qualified for the World Cup. This is indicated within standings tables by highlighting teams that are qualified in green and teams that are eliminated in red. This format is used on templates that are transcluded to many different articles, which are among the most important football articles in the encyclopedia, as they detail current info about a topic every soccer fan worldwide pays attention to and cares about. Upon learning that the New York Red Bulls were mathematically eliminated from the MLS Cup Playoffs over the weekend, I attempted to indicate this on the MLS standings table template, since it was used throughout the encyclopedia. If SkotyWA is not interested in these other articles, that is fine, but to deny that they follow a convention/use similar features, and accuse someone who wants to invoke that convention/use those features of sockpuppetry is silly.

4. Many times I have asked SkotyWA to look at what is done elsewhere on the encyclopedia, and provided links so that he might do so. The fact that he hasn't is not my fault. I started editing primarily the United States men's national soccer team article, and through editing that article I found my way to the FIFA World Cup articles, and others. In addition, I follow the top European leagues, and the UEFA Champions League, in addition to things like the FIFA Confederations Cup and CONCACAF Gold Cup, both of which the United States played in this summer. I followed them on wikipedia, and saw these features used. All of these articles have made use of the method of indicating elimination/qualification I have proposed. If SkotyWA is only concerned with MLS soccer and has not taken an interest in these other articles, and become familiar with their conventions, I don't see why that is a reason to fault me. It seems to me that we should use consistent forms of displaying information if at all possible, and that is all I have tried to do. I have not edit-warred, but discussed, and am now the target of this investigation.

5. When these edits were reverted, politely I might add, we proceded to engage in discussion about this issue. The fact that my edits were similar to those made by Grant.Alpaugh to a similar article last year. I think the fact that SkotyWA assumed the worst about someone who disagreed with them shows a lack of good faith, but that's aside the point. Upon being basically accused of sockpuppetry, a charge I emphatically deny, the fact that I familiarized myself with Grant.Alpaugh's past behavior and the issues that have left such a bad taste in SkotyWA and Grz11's mouth is being used as further evidence against me. The leap in logic here is simply staggering. In order to defend myself, I have to become familiar with what I'm being accused of. But if I do that, I'm guilty of what I'm being accused of. This is the equivalent of saying that because someone hires a lawyer, they must have something to defend themselves from, and must be guilty.

6. As SkotyWA readily admits, I have made several substantive contributions to other soccer-related articles without incident. After making one small edit, which was later reverted and not edit-warred over, I'm being accused of violating all sorts of wikipedia policy. I made one edit in passing, and now am the subject of what I deem a witch hunt, however well founded and well intentioned it may be. I have not been warned of any other violation, and simply because I disagree with SkotyWA about coloring a template, I'm being accused of sockpuppetry. That strikes of issues of ownership over the MLS articles, a charge they rightly made of Grant.Alpaugh not six months ago.

7. Simply being familiar with how to edit does not mean that I am a sockpuppet. A quote from WP:Signs of sock puppetry says "If a new account shows good wiki skill, the user may be one who has prior experience with IP editing, has carefully read instructions, policies, and guidelines prior to editing, has worked a lot on other sister projects, or has been coached by another editor known to oneself." The fact that I have made myself aware of policy, looked at discussions where policies like WP:GOODFAITH, WP:CIVIL, and WP:BRD have been invoked, and made myself fluent in these policies, is being used as evidence against me is also shocking. While I recognize that there is certainly a learning curve to editing wikipedia, the fact that I've watched and learned before doing on a consistent basis with a registered account should not be held against me. Actually, maybe it is evidence that SkotyWA, who has certainly learned the process for reporting sockpuppets rather quickly,

In conclusion, I can't do much more than strongly deny these charges, and while I can attempt to understand where these users have come from in making them, I can't help but feel that they have overstepped their bounds, and in so doing, failed to extend me good faith. – Football.Fútbol.Soccer 21:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I attempted to calmly inform on his talk page that he was behaving as Grant and his puppets had previously acted. His reaction (remember that this is a user who's had an account for 10 days) was to report me to WP:WQA (a place I didn't even know existed and I've been in and around the encyclopedia for months). He has used arguments like "this is how it's done all over the encyclopedia" (again) and "this is how it was done last year" about things that Grant "managed" previously which raised my suspicion level. This type of wording matches that of Grant (or his socks) with examples here and here respectively. He also shows strong familiarity of the wikipedia concepts of WP:GOODFAITH, WP:CIVIL, and WP:BRD which strikes me as odd for a user who's been here for less than a month. There must be a better explanation than "I did a little IP editing in the past for this". I've been editing daily for several months and these concepts still feel very new to me. Honestly I hope this is not Grant as these actions would again reset the clock on his 1 year ban. However, at this point the evidence is too strong to just leave this alone. This duck is looking more like a duck every time he makes an edit. If it's determined I'm wrong, I'll be the first to apologize. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 16:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

Requested by  Grsz 11  14:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * for checkuser attention. Nathan  T 16:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Bagged and tagged. Checkuser results + behavioral evidence make this one pretty clear. -- Jayron  32  04:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * Grant.Alpaugh is stale. Based on the combination of behavior and technical CU info from the known sock matching that of Football.Fútbol.Soccer it is  that Football.Fútbol.Soccer is Grant.Alpaugh. -- Versa  geek  23:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Report date October 6 2009, 16:15 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Football.Fútbol.Soccer has been blocked as a sockpuppet of banned user Grant.Alpaugh, and that persona (Football.Fútbol.Soccer) openly states on this ISP talkpage "I am this IP user". Kevin McE (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Kevin McE (talk)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users
 * The Geolocate points to Dayton, Ohio, home of Wright State University and Grant, per his userpage.  Grsz 11  19:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Redirected to Sockpuppet investigations/Grant.Alpaugh. Just a reminder, next time, to always submit consecutive SPI cases under the sockmaster's username. MuZemike 16:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Schoolblocked 3 months. MuZemike 00:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions