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 Wikipedia: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 ~~~~. 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: 14:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC).
- Grant.Alpaugh (talk · contribs · logs)
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
Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
Other users who endorse this summary
View by involved Grsz11
Will come Grsz11 16:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. Nja247 16:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.