Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Grant.Alpaugh

User:Grant.Alpaugh

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

Kingjeff (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Report submission by


 * Evidence
 * 3RR violation for user:Grant.Alpaugh/75.172.195.115 on the 3 templates.
 * Reverts from Template:2008 MLS standings - Overall
 * 1st Revert: 15:14, May 12, 2008


 * 2nd Revert: 16:36, May 12, 2008


 * 3rd Revert: 18:14, May 12, 2008


 * 4th Revert: 19:15, May 12, 2008


 * Template:2008 MLS standings - Western
 * Revert 1: 15:13, May 12, 2008


 * Revert 2: 16:34, May 12, 2008


 * Revert 3: 18:15, May 12, 2008


 * Revert 4: 19:14, May 12, 2008


 * Template:2008 MLS standings - Eastern
 * Revert 1: 15:13, May 12, 2008


 * Revert 2: 16:33, May 12, 2008


 * Revert 3: 18:15, May 12, 2008


 * Revert 4: 19:14, May 12, 2008


 * Possible voting fraud between user:Grant.Alpaugh and the users listed above on 2008 Major League Soccer season.


 * ✅ - per checkuser that User:Grant.Alpaugh is the IP sock. However, all the other editors named here are ❌, either to User:Grant.Alpaugh or to each other - A l is o n  ❤ 16:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Th problem started is about this edit when the standings went from Wins - Losses - Ties to Wins - Draws - Losses. There has been a lively discussion between myself, user:Grant.Alpaugh and User:Otav347 at 2008 Major League Soccer season Talk page The IP Address listed above just happened to come and did a 4th revert which just happened after user:Grant.Alpaugh 3rd revert. With Grant.Alpaugh being a suspected Sockpuppeteer, I am also suppecting him of voting fraud with at least one of the above mentioned users. Kingjeff (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments

3 out of the 4 edits done for the IP Address were the 4th revert for the 3 templates with the other edit being on another template being used in the same article as the 3 templates with 4 reverts. Kingjeff (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Just because people don't agree with you but with Grant.Alpaugh don't call them sock puppets... If you'd done your home work, you'd have seen he and I disagreed quite a bit on the MLS Infoboxes... why would he argue with himself? ← chandler 10:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the various events that resulted in the above, I cannot help but come to the conclusion that much of the above report is frivolous. A heated exchange between Kingjeff and Grant.Alpaugh (and others) has taken place at Talk:2008 Major League Soccer season, followed by an evenly split vote, vindicating WP:POLLS by the looks of things. Kingjeff has listed everybody who voted for the option he opposed as sockpuppets, yet at least three of the accounts listed belong to users based on the opposite side of the Atlantic to Grant.Alpaugh. The accusation that the IP is Grant or a meatpuppet of Grant used to circumvent 3RR may have substance, but listing the other users is entirely frivolous. In any case, it takes two to tango. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

How exactly could I be a sockpuppet of Grant.Alpaugh? From their profile they are 22 years old, live in the USA and attend Arizona university. I live in England, in Bispham, Blackpool and am nearly twice their age, and from my edit history it should be perfectly clear that I am English not American. All I did was add my name to the vote and for that I am listed as a suspected sockpuppet? Quite outstanding. I should point out that the only reason I even bothered to vote was because the issue was raised at the WP:FOOTY project which I have been a member of for some time, asking for input. So on that basis anyone who has voted as a result of it being mentioned on that project is a possible sockpuppet? Or is it just anyone who voted the way Kingjeff didn't like is suspected of being a sockpuppet? Sorry but that is ridiculous. And this whole thing is frivilous in the extreme as well as being lazy in that it only takes a minute to check users profiles. Kingjeff only needed to check profiles to see how ridiculous this. "Voting fraud" because the topic was brought up at the Footy project, quite rightly, asking for input? Going round making accusations of suspected sockpuppetry based solely (in my case at least) on the basis of a vote, and a vote because it was brought up on a project, asking for users to vote??? And just to add for any Admins reading this page, this is exactly the sort of thing that could very easily put off users from getting involved in debates such as this, if by doing so then someone comes along and starts making accusations of suspected sockpupettry based solely on a vote in a poll that they don't happen to agree with or like. In addition it any members of the Footy project who were aware of this would be wary of adding their vote to that poll now. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 14:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * On a lighter note, I'm more than willing to put up with allegations of being sockpuppet, or a meatpuppet, or whatever, but allegations of being a Wildcat is something I am not prepared to tolerate! I'm a Sun Devil.  :P  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  18:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies :) I do admit though to following Houston Dynamo simply based on the fact they play in the same kit colour as Blackpool F.C.! It seems though that Kingjeff still believes this sockpuppetry given the "Voting Fraud" message left on my userpage. And I'm afraid I don't take things like this so lightly. I just hope that an Admin will soon resolve by presumably checking IP's@ And if so then we can all get back to editing wikipedia. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 19:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Both User:Kingjeff and User:Grant.Alpaugh are still continuing their edit wars today (15th) - three reversions each on each of the Template:2008 MLS standings - Overall, Template:2008 MLS standings - Eastern and Template:2008 MLS standings - Western articles. - fchd (talk) 04:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Which just begs the question as to why we have all been dragged into all of this. All because of voting in a poll. It hardly bodes well for voting in polls in the future on wikipedia if someone can accuse other users of "Voting Fraud" and of being sockpuppets based solely on their voting in a way that one user dislikes and because that user is clearly in a long term dispute with another user. I will say this though, that I am also sure that this whole thing could very well put off other members of the WP:FOOTY project from voting on that poll in the same way I did and the others accused of being sockpuppets which is a bit sad really. The whole thing is a bit sad and pointless. There are far more important things to be concerned about than whether to put WTL or WDL or whatever it is. Surely though an Admin could please come along and check the IP addresses to resolve this so we can get back to editing wikipedia and leave the two of them to continue their dispute. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 14:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made a personal plea to a Checkuser who will hopefully be able to resolve this relatively quickly... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rambling Man. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 14:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not entirely sure how to refute claims that I'm a "sockpuppet," but...I'm not. I just personally prefer the W-D-L format. I guess my only real evidence that I'm not a sockpuppet is that I've made a truckload of edits over the past year or so, and sockpuppets are usually used for votes, as far as I know. And I'm not sure where Grant.Alpaugh is from, but I can't see him caring enough about my high school (Elmira Free Academy) to edit anything regarding it. Che84 (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

'''Thank you Alison for the results. My appologies to the innocent users I had to bring into this.''' Kingjeff (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The evidence shows a 4th revert on all 3 templates. Not an opinion on which style to use. Kingjeff (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think since we have the checkuser results for everyone in question and since it looks like everyone has given their comment, this case could be closed. Kingjeff (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes Kingjeff of course it should be closed. However you did not have to bring myself nor the other users such as Richrd Rundle and so on into this at all. You chose to, you did not have to. There was no "had to" about it at all. You could easily have taken the time to check edit histories and look for yourself into whether you thought there was any suspected sockpuppetry instead of just doing so based only on each of us having simply voted in a way you didn't like on a poll and absolutely nothing else. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 17:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree about that. The checkuser result says that Grant is a sockpuppeteer. Which is a good reason to bring other names into it. As I said this was more about Grant then anyone else. Kingjeff (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, a good reason to bring others into the discussion is if you have substantive evidence that they are involved, not just because they disagreed with you once. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, as checkuser I can say quite clearly that it's not. Furthermore, you brought the others into the SSP case before the CU result was released. I didn't have to run a c/u on the other editors here at all, but did it for completeness sake and per the circumstances - A l is o n  ❤ 17:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As has been mentioned by the above two you had no substantive evidence at all and you therefore had no good reason to include me or the other registered users. All you had in my case was my vote on a poll. A vote that you didn't agree with. That is not a valid reason to include me in this and I had hoped that you would accept that now. I fully realise that this is about your dispute with Grant, but that has nothing to do with me nor any of the other registered users. Of course you were right (presumably) to open this with regard to Grant and the IP, but you are wrong to claim that you were also right to then include the rest of us based on no evidence whatsoever, other than as pointed out, just disagreeing with you once. That is not a valid reason to include us in all of this. I would have thought that you would have the good grace to admit you were wrong and accept that you should not have brought us into this rather than continuing to try and justify yourself for doing so in the face of two Admins disagreeing with you. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 18:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I have been 100% upfront about the fact that the IP was my roommate who is on the same IP as me because we share a connection. I asked him to make the change, and he did. So at worst I'm guilty of meatpuppetry, but I didn't know about that policy, and for the record so is Kingjeff. The fact that he brought all of these other users in shows that this was nothing more than a petty, frivilous personal attack on me and the people who disagree with Jeff. Either way, I'm now up to speed on policy, I regret this whole thing, and would like nothing more than to move on to more important matters. --  Grant  .  Alpaugh  17:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So what happens now? I think it's pretty clear that there was no sockpuppetry involved, but meatpuppetry, and unintentional at that.  The other users were brought in unnecessarily, which is now more than obvious, even to Kingjeff.  So what happens now?  Do I get blocked for meatpuppetry?  Does Kingjeff get blocked for making frivilous accusations and personal attacks ("little games," "evil people like [me]," etc.)?  Both blocked?  What now?  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  20:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Grant, I don't remember using the word evil. Can you please provide a reference. I really don't like being misquoted. 21:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As I'm involved, it's not for me to decide. That will be up to an uninvolved administrator. However, per the blocking policy, blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive and the fact that you are unlikely to re-offend and have claimed ignorance of the rule should mean that you may be formally warned and not be blocked at this time, even though you were clearly in error. Time will tell. Same with Kingjeff. I've already formally warned him for his personal attacks and gross assumptions of bad faith. I personally don't see that as warranting a block at this time - A l is o n  ❤ 20:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  21:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I realise that as I am not an Admin my comments carry little weight, but surely the best way forward would not be to block either and that as both have been informed about their actions that this is now just left to rest? All I hope is that Kingjeff will start to accept repsonsibility for his actions in starting this suspected sockpuppetry case instead of placing the blame for him doing so on Grant. IMO it would be best for both of them to take a step back and do other things on wikipedia maybe even take a wikibreak because the issue that has created all this over the format of a league table is not going to get resolved straightaway with the templates now being protected to stop them edit warring with each other. Either that or agree to discuss the issue in a reasonable manner without resorting (either of tnem) to personal attacks and little digs at each other. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 21:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a lesson has been learned here. Certainly no one can claim ignorance of the law next time. I also think the parties are being honest here in their statements about this--their tone is diffeent from that of socks who falsely claim they're innocent. PLUS the CU evidence would only support the IP as a possible sock. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 11:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions