User talk:Grant.Alpaugh: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:57, 19 April 2009 editGrant.Alpaugh (talk \| contribs)7,714 edits →Edit war report: r← Previous edit		Revision as of 07:03, 19 April 2009 edit undoSkotywa (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers5,375 edits →Use of standings templates in MLS season article: An olive branch has been offeredNext edit →
Line 208:		Line 208:
	::::I've removed the sorting from the overall standings template. It turns out that putting back the colors on the conference standings template is complicated. I would have to create a 4th template with the color legend in order to get it ''exactly'' as it was before. But I have to ask myself what value the colors actually provided. a link to one of the last iterations before the templates were put back in. All of the colors have the same meaning. Why 4 colors? It was weird before and it's still weird now. Can we agree that we'll figure out a way to sort the conference tables out after this discussion has concluded? I've done half of what you requested in good faith. The other half isn't a simple revert though. I would appreciate it if we could ignore the conference table playoff indicator debate for the time being. Fair? --]<sup>'']''</sup>\|<sub>'']''</sub> 06:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)		::::I've removed the sorting from the overall standings template. It turns out that putting back the colors on the conference standings template is complicated. I would have to create a 4th template with the color legend in order to get it ''exactly'' as it was before. But I have to ask myself what value the colors actually provided. a link to one of the last iterations before the templates were put back in. All of the colors have the same meaning. Why 4 colors? It was weird before and it's still weird now. Can we agree that we'll figure out a way to sort the conference tables out after this discussion has concluded? I've done half of what you requested in good faith. The other half isn't a simple revert though. I would appreciate it if we could ignore the conference table playoff indicator debate for the time being. Fair? --]<sup>'']''</sup>\|<sub>'']''</sub> 06:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
	:::::You could split the legend up into two sections, one half at the bottom of each template. They mean different things, one is for automatic berths, the other is for wildcard berths. It shows the difference between the two conferences' playoff contingents, and was completely uncontroversial for the last two seasons. This was never discussed, and the change was made unilaterally by one editor. I would appreciate the article remaining as it was, except for templates, which is the real issue of contention here. That would be fair. -- ''']]]''' 06:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)		:::::You could split the legend up into two sections, one half at the bottom of each template. They mean different things, one is for automatic berths, the other is for wildcard berths. It shows the difference between the two conferences' playoff contingents, and was completely uncontroversial for the last two seasons. This was never discussed, and the change was made unilaterally by one editor. I would appreciate the article remaining as it was, except for templates, which is the real issue of contention here. That would be fair. -- ''']]]''' 06:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
			::::::Alright, I've put back the colors in the conference tables. They're not exactly as they were when they became templates because I also added "(Wild Card)" to the legend to address the problem I just explained. Okay, now I've provided you with an olive branch to start with. Don't abuse my trust (since I seem to be the only one willing to give it to you any more). --]<sup>'']''</sup>\|<sub>'']''</sub> 07:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

	== Personal attacks ==		== Personal attacks ==

Revision as of 07:03, 19 April 2009

Please feel free to leave me a message here and I will respond to it ASAP. Have a good one.
-- Grant .Alpaugh 17:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Contact

Grant - hi, wanted to get in touch with you with regard to your updating of the CONCACAF pages (which is great, by the way). Can you possibly send me a number I can call you on to discuss? My email is <removed>. Best, Danny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djp080306 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent WEllington Phoenix FC to Wellington Phoenix

The clubs name is actually Wellington Phoenix FC. You'll see this on their logo, and you'll also see it on the website (http://www.wellingtonphoenix.com/ - the writing under the nav clearly says Wellington Phoenix FC) CipherPixel (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Perth Glory F.C.

Just a friendly note on the Perth Glory F.C. speedy deletion / move. I declined the speedy because given the number of times you and Timsdad have reverted each other in the last couple of days, this is a controversial deletion / move. If you two can't work something out between you, I suggest you take it to Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion for consensus.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Replying to your post at User_talk:Fabrictramp#Perth_Glory: when you and another editor are running up against 3RR over whether the redirect should stay as is, it certainly seems to others that you are not in accord. As I said above, either work it out between you or take it to RfD.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey

I just want to present an olive branch- I have no problem admitting that I don't know much on Misplaced Pages but I am also not completely new to website/coding/or sports editing. If you have some opinions on how to improve my KCW articles I welcome the input and by all means have at them. I probably can't see the forest from the trees on my own articles a lot of the time but I've spent a lot of time recently researching the project pages from a lot of different sources, I feel view myself as a bit of a creator and view you as more of an editor- I think we can work together like that. Hope you have a good day and I hope we can improve this little area. Morry32 (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't tell me what I think

You just errantly pointed out that I'm "obviously a fan of European football" which I am not (not yet anyway). I've never watched soccer on TV beyond a few World Cup games every 4 years and am only interested now because I decided to buy season tickets to the Sounders FC this year and am enjoying their success. Their first home game was the first match I've ever attended in person. Furthermore, I've never played soccer competitively or for recreation in my life. I played (American) football in high school. Despite what you're telling me I think, my opinions are driven by a desire to do the right thing on Misplaced Pages and not by some misunderstanding, misconception, or other outside interest.

Please don't confuse the feedback I'm about to give as incivility. Consider it more of calling a spade a spade...

You make a lot of important contributions to many MLS articles which is a great thing. Don't let this productivity turn you into a diva where you think that your history in some way empowers you to have a more important opinion that someone else. As you've probably noticed with some of my edits, I've researched a lot of the previous discussions around MLS related articles to make sure that I don't do something against consensus. In reading those discussions, I've seen you participate vigorously in a number of them. In many of them you've brought up disparate points to back what you've already determined is the proper conclusion and people have called you out on it. You really need to do a better job listening in these types of discussions rather than trying to further prove your own point from a different angle every time you talk.

In the interest of not beating another dead horse, I've decided to walk away and let you win if that's how it turns out. I deemed the entire discussion petty after my second post and decided I would have at most one more post before I walked away. I've seen the discussions you previously engaged in and was not about to go down that road. It's just not that important to me.

Anyway, sorry if any of the above offended you. It's meant as honest feedback and not a personal attack. I hope to cross paths with you many times again in the future. Hopefully we'll be in agreement more often than we disagree. Either way, I'm glad you're here.--Skotywa 23:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverting

When you revert another person's edit, please make sure you're not removing any useful/sourced content in the process. For example, your revert of Premier League 2009–10 removed a navbox that User:Soccer-holic had added. This probably was not your intention, but please be more careful about exactly what you are reverting in the future. – Pee Jay 21:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit war report

You seem to stopped participating in the discussions on Talk:2009 Seattle Sounders FC season, so I've reported you for edit warring here. On an aside, you seem to be way to quick on hitting the revert button when you don't like something. Especially when you're in the "minority". --Bobblehead 23:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Notice of sanctions

You continue to edit war on a variety of articles, including the exact same one that you were blocked for edit warring at before. Besides the Seattle Sounders articles I count at least two other articles you have reverted multiple times in just the past 3-4 hours. Since you did not learn your lesson, I am notifying you that you are now on indefinate revert parole. Consider this 0RR. If there is vandalism, notify someone, and they can take care of it. You can no longer be trusted to revert the edits of others. If you make another revert, for any reason, you may be blocked. Please, I urge you, use the discussion pages instead of reverting. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Grant.Alpaugh (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Due to formatting issues with the unblock request template, I've given my reasons for my request below.

Decline reason:

Edits concerning grammar, style and other content issues are not excepted from WP:3RR. Since you state that you will continue to revert edits that you object to, you remain blocked. Sandstein 10:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I am requesting to be unblocked because the reversion I made on 2009 Major League Soccer season was the reversion of factually incorrect information and grammatical errors. The intro to the section currently stands as:

The Conference standings determine automatic berths to the MLS Cup Playoffs, with the top two teams in each conference given playoff spots.

"Spots" is unprofessional language, the word "berths" should be used here, as it was throughout the article.

Teams ranked fifth through eighth in the overall standings are given wildcard berths to the MLS Playoffs. The top six teams receive berts to the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup. The top overall teams is the winner of the MLS Supporters' Shield and receives a berth in the CONCACAF Champions League. The second overall team competes in the North American SuperLiga.

That's not true. The top four teams not given automatic berths into the playoffs are given berths into the playoffs, but they can be the 3rd through 6th, or 4th through 7th. More than just the second overall team competes in SuperLiga. The blurb was written to be intentionally nondescript to avoid having to repeat the section above detailing the qualification criteria to all of the related competitions. It is also the same blurb that has been used from the previous two seasons' articles.

There are also grammatical errors:

"The top overall teams is the winner of the MLS Supporters' Shield"

and

"The top six teams receive berts to the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup."

The version I believe should be restored is:

The Conference standings are used to determine automatic berths to the MLS Cup Playoffs. The overall standings table determines wild card berths to the MLS Cup Playoffs, qualification for the SuperLiga, the CONCACAF Champions League, the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup, and the winner of the MLS Supporters' Shield.

I understand that I have had a problem with edit warring, but the removal of incorrect and sloppy work should not fall into the perview of edit warring. The fact that vandalism doesn't count toward the 3RR proves this. I think that this block is unnecessarily punitive, and prevents the discussion of the issues at hand, namely the use of templates in the main 2009 MLS season article and all MLS team-specific season articles. If unblocked, I will not revert any substantive changes to any articles, but the removal of vandalism and incorrect information cannot, and should not be abided by any editor. -- Grant .Alpaugh 20:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Instead of removal, why not try correction? Grsz 21:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I did. I corrected the redundant repetition of information in an incomplete, incorrect, and incoherent manner, from one section to another, by reverting to the blurb that is on two other articles. -- Grant .Alpaugh 21:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you reverted. Not once, but twice. And broke 3RR. All this after the warning from Jayron. Grsz 21:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The information you added is redundant. It is poorly formatted. It is incomplete. Most of all, those things are completely unnecessary as this information is detailed completely in a previous section of the article. This has been the case for the past two seasons. The only thing I could do to keep the article consistent, concise, complete, and un-redundant was revert your changes. Argue those points, as they matter more than the number of times you re-inserted them. -- Grant .Alpaugh 21:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted, that though the claim that the block was punitive, given that the latest revert came at 18:46 UTC and the user was warned at 18:39 UTC and confirmed receiving the warning at 18:44 UTC it is clear that the user intended to continue to violate WP:EDITWAR an infinite amount of times. Since a clear warning did not stop his revert warring, a block was the only way to make it stop. If this blocked user makes clear, unambiguous assurances that he will not return to edit war again at the same articles, under penalty of a yet longer block, any other admin may unblock him without contacting me first. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. I will continue to revert poor grammar and unfactual things, but I will not edit war. -- Grant .Alpaugh 00:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|The contentious issue of the lead to the standings section of the 2009 Major League Soccer season has been resolved by being removed from the article entirely, which I have no problem with. I'm asking to be unblocked because over the last day I have taken the time to realize what a moron I was being, and I now only want to get back to resolving the issue of the standings templates on the article through discussion. I think that a week will be so long as to lose the interest of those involved, while the day or so that has passed has allowed tempers to cool on both sides. I will not revert anyone's edits on any article other than blatant vandalism as defined in WP:3RR. I really do want to get on with the business of improving the encyclopedia constructively.}}

I am OK with that unblock request. You understand what the problem is, so I have unblocked you. Please take care that you don't find yourself embroiled in any more edit wars. Understand that since you have an established pattern for this kind of problem, that the response to future violations is likely to be more severe than for the "average" user. I believe you above, and am extending you good faith that you understand what you have done wrong, and that you will work to avoid such problems in the future. Please do not make a fool of me for this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Why would I appeal the block if I was just going to evade it with a new account? I am serious about my desire to discuss these issues on the talk page. I haven't had the ability to because I've been doing homework. My brother came into this discussion the same way anyone else would, as he uses the 2009 MLS article frequently. We have been arguing nothing but the merits of the arguments, not "majority rule," so the fact that there are two of us hasn't played into things one bit. I can't even defend myself on the sockpuppetry allegation page because I've been blocked. -- Grant .Alpaugh 04:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Grant.Alpaugh for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Grsz 03:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for misusing multiple accounts.

See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Grant.Alpaugh. After I unblocked you in good faith, you pull this shit? I asked that you not make a fool of me. Thanks for doing just that. I wash my hands of you. I have reblocked you for 1 month. Feel free to request another unblock, but I will not be the one who trusts you. Not again. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

See my above comments. I am not trying to make a fool out of you. I am not being afforded good faith. -- Grant .Alpaugh 04:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Allegations =/= guilt. You are preventing me from defending myself properly. I am not trying to game the system at all. My brother can edit the encyclopedia, too. -- Grant .Alpaugh 04:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Why should we believe it's your brother? If he frequently uses the page, why no account? Even still, meatpuppeting is just as wrong. Grsz 04:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It becomes harder and harder to afford you good faith when you have a history of these problems. See . The same problem happened almost a year ago, and you came up with some similar excuse about a roommate or some such. Really, at this point, I am beyond trying to understand your psychology. Like I said, go ahead and ask for another admin to review this by using the unblock template. I am done. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Using the page doesn't require an account, and per guidelines on accounts, people should not share accounts when they want to edit or contribute to discussion. I did not ask my brother to join the discussion. He found it the exact same way you did. You didn't edit the article until recently either. He also didn't edit the article, he contributed to discussion. Either way, this block does not allow me to defend myself on the accusation page. I'm sorry, but Jayron32 is not judge, jury, and executioner. This is frankly ridiculous. -- Grant .Alpaugh 04:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Your brother happened to create a Misplaced Pages account (later used exclusively to argue your exact position in a debate, referring to a "system that was used for over a year") during the same minute in which you posted an unblock request? —David Levy 04:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. First, why would I ask to be unblocked if I was just going to create a new account to evade the block? On to your question, my brother only made the account because he couldn't remember the password for his old account User:Caleb.Alpaugh, and he didn't like the name since it was like mine, so he made his own account. User:Caleb.Alpaugh was created a month ago, well before this conflict on 2009 Major League Soccer season ever started, because he wanted to clean up the Los Angeles Galaxy article, but never got started because of the monstrosity of the task. He stumbled into this discussion the same way everyone else did, by using the article. He wasn't required to create an account to use the article (not edit, just look at the information), so he had no need to get involved in editing until the page changed all of a sudden in the last few days. He is detailing this on his new page User talk:Spydy13.

My larger point is that I just simply don't understand what has happened in the last week. I have been a productive member of this project for several years. I have done tons of work on United States men's national soccer team, 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONCACAF), CONCACAF, Major League Soccer, 2007 Major League Soccer season, 2008 Major League Soccer season, 2009 Major League Soccer season, Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup, 2008 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup, 2008 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup qualification, 2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup, 2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup qualification, and many more articles. Two weeks ago User:Skotywa, User:Morry32, and User:Grsz11 decided that the article format in place for two years was no longer correct. Skotywa admits he only started following soccer this year because of the Sounders, and Grsz11 has mainly edited hockey articles until last week. I have been involved in editing these articles for years, and with that experience comes the knowledge of what makes editing the articles easiest. I was part of the discussions last year about American format vs. International format for scores and standings. I was part of the move away from templates last season, which was objected to by no one. Now three editors change things in a week with little discussion, I lose control of my temper, was unblocked after recognizing what I did wrong, and because my brother happened to enter the discussion, I'm unable to edit for a month. Then on top of it I am unable to discuss the charges against me in the proper forum, and the case is left open for all of 40 minutes without so much as a comment from me. Seriously, the only thing missing is a chime in from User:Kingjeff to complete this shit sandwich. I have done nothing wrong, and deserve the opportunity to defend myself in the proper forum before being blocked for a month. Zero good faith has been extended to me. -- Grant .Alpaugh 04:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a couple problems with your logic. Your comments seem to indicate that since you've been contributing for over two years, you somehow have the right to overrule everyone who disagrees with you. I admit that in all the time I've been contributing to Misplaced Pages (3 years now) I have never run into someone with your MO of revert then discuss only if it's brought up, then continue reverting even after consensus doesn't seem to be going your way. I too tried to give you the benefit of the doubt both here and here, but finally gave up on reasoning with you after your last comment here. Later interactions with you have only gotten worse (obviously). I was the one who created the Sounders FC season article, but I claim no ownership of it and have made honest attempts to incorporate your feedback into the way I approached future edits to the article. I know I'm a newcomer to editing these MLS related articles (as many of the current editors appear to be), but as Misplaced Pages editors, all of our opinions have the same weight, new and old. While some of us are new to editing MLS articles, most of us are not new to Misplaced Pages. It truly pains me that you've had such an alergic reaction to all of this in the past week that you've gotten yourself blocked twice. I'm not very familiar with the whole blocking process, but the justification seems rational though unfortunate. When you come back (and I really hope you do) please remember that consensus can change over time and often does especially with new editors who have new ideas and new points of view. Your choice is to either embrace the new participants and allow them to make what you believe are mistakes and then discuss with them why things should be different, or you can continue to make manifest this alergy you seem to be having with other editors you don't have a history with.--Skotywa 18:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to think that Misplaced Pages is a democracy. It most certainly is WP:NOT. We don't go on majority rule. We make arguments, and the merits of the arguments win or lose, not the number of people ascribing to them. Go look at Talk:2008 Major League Soccer season and see the discussion about American format vs. International format. The number of people voting on each option is roughly even, but the people involved in the discussion all came to the same conclusion in the end. They respected the decision to leave the article the way it had been for months until discussion was completed. You have still not explained why the team season articles need to have full standings tables that take up a page of space in the article. This is not Major League Baseball where a table has five teams in it. You obviously have not realized that you can click "edit this page" at the top of the article and edit the whole thing when you update, which leaves the page in less flux during matchdays, keeps edits down, and makes the whole process easier and more accurate. This ability is removed with the templates. No one has explained why the templates, if we adopt them, should be anything but carbon copies of the original tables that can be transcluded to other articles. The format of them has changed a ton, and it makes the articles look sloppy and inconsistent. Answer all of these arguments, don't just rely on "more people are predisposed to my opinion, despite the fact that they haven't been involved in American soccer articles for more than a month." That is exactly what your MO has been on these articles. You are the ones who are changing these articles from what they have been in the past. That means that you are the ones who have to justify the changes before they are implimented, not me. -- Grant .Alpaugh 18:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Once again, don't tell me what I think. I'm under no illusion that some vote is going to be taken and that this vote will ignore anyone's arguments. However I'm also under no illusion that everyone in any given discussion has to agree fully before a change can be made. You can keep attacking a discussion for every new angle you invent, but in the end, if everyone else agrees that your arguments aren't valid (excluding your relatives), then consensus has been reached whether you like it or not. I'm also very aware of the American/International format and have taken steps to help that consensus move forward into reality. I'm surprised you've already forgotten this discussion you and I had. Again, you've left me speechless. The fact that some of the people in the template discussion on the 2009 MLS season page don't have a long history in soccer articles is irrelevant. Templates or no templates is a question any Wikipedian can weigh in on. Once again, you're just trying to disqualify the opinions of others through some assumption you make about them rather than having constructive dialog. Enjoy your month off. I'm concluding that it's well deserved at this point. --Skotywa 22:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Answer my arguments.

Why do these templates need to be in the Kansas City and Seattle articles, when the information is summarized previously?
Why should the main article be made more difficult to edit because you want these templates in the Kansas City and Seattle article?
If we move to templates, why should they differe in any way from the previous tables?
Why shouldn't the format for the last two seasons remain in place until this issue has been resolved?

Answer these arguments and we can have a discussion, the way things are decided on Misplaced Pages. -- Grant .Alpaugh 23:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I going out on a limb here humoring you like this. I will continue as long as you remain civil. I promise if you throw one more insult at me I'm done with this conversation. My answers to your arguments... #1 Because this is following the pattern of other American sport season articles. This is a tenet you have fought vigorously for in other contexts, but not here and I don't understand why. One other (very minor) reason is that it provides a shared color legend for your round-by-round table in the Sounders FC season article. With the presence of the legend somewhere close by (in the overall standings template), I'm actually very happy with your round-by-round ideas and will probably template it as is (with the scores) when/if I get around to it. You had some good ideas there and I think my objections ended up being driven more by the way you acted than the actual content. This round-by-round legend reason is not enough to stand on it's own, but I thought you might find it interesting. #2 You gave the main reason yourself (so they can be included in season articles), but another answer provided already in the discussion is this: "is it really that difficult to click the edit link". I tend to agree that the "it's too hard" argument doesn't stand on it's own. #3 They shouldn't differ in any way. I've worked hard to make that true. #4 That's irrelevant to the consensus discussion. That's just a fact that appears to be distracting to some, but should not be brought up as an argument for or against. We can have the discussion on the pure topic while the article itself is either in the before or after state can't we? --SkotyWA|_Contribs 00:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for finally debating the merits of the arguments. I apologize for my tone earlier, but you can imagine how frustrating it is doing something one way for three years, and then mid-season changing things to suit the wishes of people who have never been involved in the American soccer articles, especially since you are so open about your newness to the game.

In baseball articles the template is 5 or 6 teams long, in MLS there is a conference standing and a full table standing. Together they are much to long, especially when the information is already detailed in another template. Pick one or the other.
Keeping information accurate was much easier when everything was updatable through one click of the mouse. Editing the whole article also kept the page from having 16 different versions during matchdays. Since you have yet to establish why these templates need to be in the club season articles to begin with, I don't think that those alleged benefits outweigh the costs to those who actually update the main article.
Apparently you haven't tried hard enough, because the overall standings template is now sortable (something that wasn't previously in the table, and is unnecessary as it causes umpteen accessability problems). Additionally, the conference standings templates no longer have the same look as the overall template, which makes them look sloppy and poorly designed. There is no reason why the templates shouldn't simply be copy-and-pastes of the two tables before all of this happened.
Why should the changes you want have to be implimented before there is strong consensus for them? Shouldn't the fact that the articles were a certain way for several years without objection give that format weight? I wouldn't go to the Premier League article and change the standings template in use all season, and then expect my changes to stand while the discussion about them carrys on. Why should that happen here?

If you could try to format your points like I did in future posts, it would make things easier to follow. Also, now that I am unblocked, I plan to copy most of this to the main discussion. -- Grant .Alpaugh 01:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Formatted as you requested:

What other template is the information already detailed in? Honestly given your recent "washing of the hands" I can't understand why this is so important to you still. I think having the standing in the team season articles is useful, notable and informative and I haven't "washed my hands" yet.
I think your sorely exaggerating it when you say "16 different versions". Honestly, if you're right and it's really that difficult, why don't you just let it happen and then you can say "I told you so" when it turns out to be harder than any of the other editors expected. I think you'd get equal satisfaction out of that as you are now of belaboring this point.
Can we discuss whether the overall standings template should be sortable separately. It's irrelevant to the template discussion. The conference standings were exactly as they were in the article when I created them. The had recently changed to remove some of the coloring, but I copied them exactly. I agree that they should be exactly the same as they were in the article before we made the transition to templates. From there they can "grow and change" as they would have in the article. Don't pollute the template discussion with nit-picking these differences.
Based on that comment I suspect that as soon as an admin fixes your block correctly, you plan to revert everything again. Let me suggest that you don't do that (but I'm sure you'll do whatever you want). Regardless, for the purposes of this conversation it really doesn't matter what the state of the article is while it's going on. I know you want to keep screaming "it's not fair, it's not fair," but my response is "it doesn't matter" for the discussion. It's not a valid point because it can change at any minute. It's just a gripe.

So if I understand everything, #1 and #2 seem to be the real sticking points for you. Fair? --SkotyWA|_Contribs 02:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Grant.Alpaugh (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been accused of sockpuppetry without being given the opportunity to defend myself. Jayron32 is not judge, jury, and executioner. I will answer these allegations, but I cannot until I have been unblocked.

Decline reason:

You are certainly welcome to post whatever evidence you have to contest the allegations here. You have not provided a reason to be unblocked. Hersfold 04:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Grant.Alpaugh (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was unblocked by Jayron32 so that I could participate in discussion without edit warring. Before I could even do that I was reblocked due to allegations of sockpuppetry, which I strenuously deny, and there is still a page that convicts me of sockpuppetry after 40 minutes without so much as an opportunity to defend myself. Neither I, nor my alleged sockpuppet, edited articles in any controversial way during my short time unblocked, and merely participated in discussion. If unblocked, I will not attempt to edit articles in any way, other than to revert obvious vandalism as defined in WP:3RR, and will simply participate in discussion in an attempt to resolve the contentious issues that lead to my previous block for edit warring. I think that given my long history of productive editing detailed above, I should be allowed to participate fully in discussion about my guilt regarding these allegations, and work on resolving contentious issues on an article I have worked on quite a bit.

Decline reason:

Firstly, you are able to attempt to refute the allegations against you on this talk page. In fact, you have done so (albeit unconvincingly). Secondly, the above discussion indicates that your attitude regarding "the contentious issues that to your previous block for edit warring" remains unchanged. I suggest that you utilize your one-month break to rethink your approach. Reading Misplaced Pages:Consensus and Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles wouldn't hurt. —David Levy 00:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What do I have to do in order to refute the charges against me? It seems to me that there is nothing I can do. -- Grant .Alpaugh 00:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Your best course of action is to retract your implausible defense, apologize for your sock puppetry and pledge to never engage in such conduct again. —David Levy 00:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

But I'm not guilty, David. My brother uses the encyclopedia and created an account. Short of posting personal information here, I don't know what else to do in order to prove our innocence. -- Grant .Alpaugh 00:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you understand why this defense seems implausible? —David Levy 00:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No I don't. I realize that everyone says roughly the same thing, but that doesn't deal with everything that happened. Please, explain why I would in the same minute create an account to evade the block and petition for an unblock? That simply doesn't make any sense. If I was going to evade the block, why wouldn't I use it to re-start the edit war? Why would I use multiple accounts to take the conclusion that was reached on the 2009 article and apply it to the 2008 and 2007 MLS and MLS Playoff articles, then participate in discussion about the template issue on the 2009 talk page? If I was going to be disruptive, why wouldn't I take full advantage? -- Grant .Alpaugh 00:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Please, explain why I would in the same minute create an account to evade the block and petition for an unblock?

For the same reason why non-blocked users engage in sock puppetry: to create the appearance of support for one's stance.

If I was going to evade the block, why wouldn't I use it to re-start the edit war?

Because you recognized the futility and instead sought to swing the discussion in your favor.

But you've managed to convince Jayron32 of your innocence, so congratulations. —David Levy 01:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked

I have unblocked this account as well as that of Spydy13 as I find the explanation credible. Please understand my reasoning for blocking both accounts, the timing of the edits and the fact that a new account showed up and began to make your exact arguements made it appear as though some chicanery was going on. I urge you to continue to use the talk page and avoid edit warring per your prior agreements. I would also urge that if any other friends/brothers/roommates are going to be stopping by in this manner, that such associations are made clear so that everyone can understand what is going on. Unless we have that, we only have the evidence to go on. Sorry for the mix up on this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Grant.Alpaugh (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am still IP blocked.

Decline reason:

The toolserver finally responded and it says you're not blocked. If you are unable to edit, your block message should contain somewhere some code for a {{unblock-auto}} or {{unblock-ip}} template. Copy that to this page exactly as it appears there. More detailed instructions are available at {{autoblock}}.

Can you post the unblock-auto template provided in your block message? The toolserver's being stupid and I can't find your block. Hersfold 01:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you want me to do. -- Grant .Alpaugh 01:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Copy and paste what it shows when you try to edit. Grsz 02:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You are currently unable to edit pages on Misplaced Pages due to an autoblock affecting your IP address.

This is because someone using this internet address or shared proxy server was blocked. The ability of all users on this IP address to edit pages has been automatically suspended to prevent abuse by the blocked party. Innocent users are sometimes caught in an autoblock. It may be the case that you have done nothing wrong.

A user of this IP address was blocked by Jayron32 for the following reason (see our blocking policy):

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Spydy13". The reason given for Spydy13's block is: "Abusing multiple accounts: User:Grant.Alpaugh created new account to build This block has been set to expire: 00:41, April 20, 2009.

Note that you have not been blocked from editing directly. Most likely your computer is on a shared network with other people.

You should be able to edit now. That isn't what I asked for, but it was enough to let me find the block. Hersfold 02:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

WPS

Hey, this edit summary was needlessly hostile. You essentially accused him of using the wrong abbreviation on purpose, which was probably not the case. Just try and be a little less aggressive when it comes to issues like that. Grsz 04:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood. I was talking about two seperate issues. They made a similar correction to the abbreviations, and I was following suit so we are in line with WPS abbreviations. The I'm referring to is the Away-Home format, which I also corrected in the edit. American sports articles on WP use a standard format of Away-Home, W-L-T, and so do American soccer articles. They are trying to change that, and this has been beaten to death here and a number of other places. One person on one article can't change that unilaterally. -- Grant .Alpaugh 04:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Who is they? All articles are self-contained, what happens at one has nothing to do with another. CyMoahk had nothing to do with anything on the MLS season and it's inappropriate for you to take it out on him. Grsz 05:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Avoid the appearence of evil

In light of the week's events, it would behoove you and your brother if he stayed out of any discussions you are actively participating in. You've already been accused of sock puppetry and meat puppetry and so many people (including admins) are watching you both very closely. Grant, your arguments should be able to stand on their own. When your brother chimes in, it doesn't help. Regardless of how honorable your (or his) intentions may be, it would be easy for anyone to perceive it as more evil activity from the two of you. Just my simple advice. --SkotyWA|_Contribs 04:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

My brother has legitimate points, and we don't agree on everything. He questions the need to even have club season articles. We will not help each other edit war or anything, but his opinion is just as valid as anyone elses. Sound familiar? -- Grant .Alpaugh 05:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, you do what you want then. So far doing what you want has gotten you both in quite a brier patch. --SkotyWA|_Contribs 05:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of standings templates in MLS season article

Why don't we try to discuss this civilly ourselves instead of having it out in open court. If you and I can reach some consensus, that would help the main discussion a lot. I've copied below the last two posts from the discussion I engaged in with you while you were blocked. Can we pick up where we left off? --SkotyWA|_Contribs 05:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

In baseball articles the template is 5 or 6 teams long, in MLS there is a conference standing and a full table standing. Together they are much to long, especially when the information is already detailed in another template. Pick one or the other.
Keeping information accurate was much easier when everything was updatable through one click of the mouse. Editing the whole article also kept the page from having 16 different versions during matchdays. Since you have yet to establish why these templates need to be in the club season articles to begin with, I don't think that those alleged benefits outweigh the costs to those who actually update the main article.
Apparently you haven't tried hard enough, because the overall standings template is now sortable (something that wasn't previously in the table, and is unnecessary as it causes umpteen accessability problems). Additionally, the conference standings templates no longer have the same look as the overall template, which makes them look sloppy and poorly designed. There is no reason why the templates shouldn't simply be copy-and-pastes of the two tables before all of this happened.
Why should the changes you want have to be implimented before there is strong consensus for them? Shouldn't the fact that the articles were a certain way for several years without objection give that format weight? I wouldn't go to the Premier League article and change the standings template in use all season, and then expect my changes to stand while the discussion about them carrys on. Why should that happen here?If you could try to format your points like I did in future posts, it would make things easier to follow. Also, now that I am unblocked, I plan to copy most of this to the main discussion. -- Grant .Alpaugh 01:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Formatted as you requested:

What other template is the information already detailed in? Honestly given your recent "washing of the hands" I can't understand why this is so important to you still. I think having the standing in the team season articles is useful, notable and informative and I haven't "washed my hands" yet.
I think your sorely exaggerating it when you say "16 different versions". Honestly, if you're right and it's really that difficult, why don't you just let it happen and then you can say "I told you so" when it turns out to be harder than any of the other editors expected. I think you'd get equal satisfaction out of that as you are now of belaboring this point.
Can we discuss whether the overall standings template should be sortable separately. It's irrelevant to the template discussion. The conference standings were exactly as they were in the article when I created them. The had recently changed to remove some of the coloring, but I copied them exactly. I agree that they should be exactly the same as they were in the article before we made the transition to templates. From there they can "grow and change" as they would have in the article. Don't pollute the template discussion with nit-picking these differences.
Based on that comment I suspect that as soon as an admin fixes your block correctly, you plan to revert everything again. Let me suggest that you don't do that (but I'm sure you'll do whatever you want). Regardless, for the purposes of this conversation it really doesn't matter what the state of the article is while it's going on. I know you want to keep screaming "it's not fair, it's not fair," but my response is "it doesn't matter" for the discussion. It's not a valid point because it can change at any minute. It's just a gripe.

So if I understand everything, #1 and #2 seem to be the real sticking points for you. Fair? --SkotyWA|_Contribs 02:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but can we first agree that someone (preferably you) should edit the conference standings templates to use colors like they did before, and make the overall standings template unsortable, like it was before? That would preserve the look of the article, while keeping things templated. I think that would be a fair compromise that would show good faith for the discussion to come. Deal? -- Grant .Alpaugh 05:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the sorting from the overall standings template. It turns out that putting back the colors on the conference standings template is complicated. I would have to create a 4th template with the color legend in order to get it exactly as it was before. But I have to ask myself what value the colors actually provided. Here's a link to one of the last iterations before the templates were put back in. All of the colors have the same meaning. Why 4 colors? It was weird before and it's still weird now. Can we agree that we'll figure out a way to sort the conference tables out after this discussion has concluded? I've done half of what you requested in good faith. The other half isn't a simple revert though. I would appreciate it if we could ignore the conference table playoff indicator debate for the time being. Fair? --SkotyWA|_Contribs 06:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You could split the legend up into two sections, one half at the bottom of each template. They mean different things, one is for automatic berths, the other is for wildcard berths. It shows the difference between the two conferences' playoff contingents, and was completely uncontroversial for the last two seasons. This was never discussed, and the change was made unilaterally by one editor. I would appreciate the article remaining as it was, except for templates, which is the real issue of contention here. That would be fair. -- Grant .Alpaugh 06:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I've put back the colors in the conference tables. They're not exactly as they were when they became templates because I also added "(Wild Card)" to the legend to address the problem I just explained. Okay, now I've provided you with an olive branch to start with. Don't abuse my trust (since I seem to be the only one willing to give it to you any more). --SkotyWA|_Contribs 07:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

If you had been following MLS for more than the last week, you would see that the number of teams from each conference making the playoffs changes from week to week. Eliminating the colors from the Conference standings eliminates valuable information. Furthermore, it takes away from the unifying look of the two sets of tables, as now they are using different formats. Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it is bad. It is clear from your attempts to edit the intro blurb that you fundamentally misunderstand MLS as a competition, which is fine, but that probably means you should leave the editing and formatting the standings to others. Changing the format mid-season is even more problematic. You made these changes unilaterally. All discussion on the talk page was about the question of whether or not to move to templates, not on changing the formats. Please address these issues somewhere in discussion, so that we can move on to whether or not to use templates. Also, the way you have been going around telling everyone who will listen that Spydy13 and I are sockpuppets is rather immature, don't you think? You're not doing anything but poisoning the well, which is problematic. Spydy13 and I haven't been proven to be guilty of anything, and the way our block was steamrolled through (a move the blocking admin now regrets) is not unsimilar to the manner this whole discussion has proceeded, which is also unfortunate. You also seem to misunderstand that my brother and I can be living in the same house, have multiple computers, and still have the same IP because of our internet provider. I guess my point is that you should do a little less talking about things which you obviously know very little about. -- Grant .Alpaugh 05:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't make personal attacks again. I removed the colors for the conference table for exactly that reason, that only the top 2 are guaranteed. I don't care how much more you think you know, you're behavior the past week is unacceptable. Grsz 05:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If my edits (the few I made) were without consensus, wouldn't someone have removed them? Grsz 05:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I did. I got blocked for edit warring on a different issue, and the templates were made based on the ones in place at the time. SkotyWA didn't realize my objection to the lack of colors, and agrees that the templates should have been exactly the same as before. You made your edit because you didn't understand the difference between automatic and wild card berths, but if you had been following the article for more than a week you would have seen the conference standings in flux. Look at 2007 Major League Soccer season and 2008 Major League Soccer season and you will see that the Eastern Conference got 5 teams in both years. It just so happened that when you stumbled into the article it was 4 and 4 and you assumed that there were 4 colors representing the same thing. Again, just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it is bad. -- Grant .Alpaugh 06:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your behavior, just as you have done mine. You have been just as abrasive and provocative as I have, and to a lot more people on a lot more talk pages. You spread unfounded allegations as though they were fact, and that doesn't even address the fact that your actions in editing the article (just like mine) were entirely without consensus. Can we agree that we should both have acted more maturely? Can you attempt to address my arguments? -- Grant .Alpaugh 05:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I knew it was just the first two...obvious when I made the line and reworded the lead. Grsz 06:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

When you first made the change it was under the fourth. You don't know what you're talking about. -- Grant .Alpaugh 06:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I can do what I'd like on my page, just like you can here. If you want to remove all these messages fine, but I would rather keep a conversation in one place. Grsz 06:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit war report

Sorry Grant, but I've been contemplating this a long time and though I'm generally very trusting, I'm really getting tired of all the back-and-forth on the 2009 WPS season article, and the more I read about revert policies and about the other trouble you've gotten in to, I can no longer think you're servicing Misplaced Pages well with your stubbornness and tendency to quickly change whatever you don't like, even when you're in the minority (and it's not just me saying that, I've read all the comments above on your talk page). I also notice you've broken you earlier promise of "I will continue to revert poor grammar and unfactual things, but I will not edit war" with all the changes you've made on the 2009 WPS season article. So here's another edit war report. CyMoahk (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

As per your comments on my report,

If you read up on Edits Wars, they are not limited to 24hr periods.
It was not OR. I gave the source I used, and anyone else could verify or correct the information I put up by looking at that source. I have incredible trouble believing you even read some of the things I said in the discussion page since I quoted the part of the OR article that supported my claim and another editor supported me as well.
I try to not revert (unless I have new evidence/support) since I don't want to be the one accused of edit warring; trust me, I would be reverting your things more often if I wasn't so paranoid. And your edits are not uncontested, based on the comments of three other users supporting me on the talk page.
I wasn't opposing your SB->SJ switch, btw, good catch on that one; I hadn't realized WPS did that since it wasn't on the old site, which was up until just two days ago.

I will admit I'm always wary of rules, and thus scared of misunderstanding policy. However, I've read plenty enough to be pretty sure I know what I'm doing. CyMoahk (talk) 06:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you understand that every American sports article uses the Away-Home, W-L-T format? There is no reason to confuse WP users by doing something different. Look at that MLS discussion, and you'll see why the consensus was what it was. As for the stats, the random trivia ones weren't sourced like the Premier League ones were, so there's no need to re-include them until they are sourced. As for the other tables, why shouldn't we use the one page summary WPS reports? I don't want to edit war over this either, but I think you should better understand established WP practice before continuing this discussion. -- Grant .Alpaugh 06:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)