User talk:Spydy13

This account has been created in an attempt to voice my opinion about the 2009 MLS Season article. I am User:Grant.Alpaugh's brother and created this article in part because I had forgotten my password to a previous account and also because I was afraid of being accused of nepotism in any discussion that I had on the 2009 MLS Season article. I understand that the second part is disingenuous and will immediatly switch back to the other account if it will eliminate confusion. You will see that a User:Caleb.Alpaugh was created in March of this year. I created that account with the intent of cleaning up the L.A. Galaxy article, but ended up not doing anything because I became frustrated with the amount of work that had to be done. I feel that I should be allowed to voice my opinion, even if I happen to share the same IP as Grant.Alpaugh. I am not aware of a one user per house rule on WIKI. You will also see that this account (Spydy13) did not make any edits to articles, but only attempted to move along the dialogue on a much heated topic. ----

unblocked

I have unblocked this account as well as that of Grant 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)

I thank you for unblocking me and my brother. I wanted to ask you whether or not I should continue to use this account since their has been a history established, or would you prefer that I switch to the User:Caleb.Alpaugh account that I created last month. I sort of feel as if this account has been tainted because User:Grsz11 has told various users that this account is Grant.Alpaugh. Thank you for any help you can give me with this matter.

Well it's still a meatpuppet, which is unacceptable as well. Grsz¹¹ 01:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

As I stated in the first post on this talk page, I created an earlier account so that I could edit the LA Galaxy article. I am obviously a fan of MLS and I visit the season article weekly because it is much easier to look at than the tables of MLSNet.com. I went to the discussion page because I had seen that the tables had changed and wanted to know why, considering I had thought that they were perfectly fine to begin with. I read the previous points made in the discussion and added my own two cents. I created a new account because I knew my points would be thrown out if everyone knew that they were coming from Grant's brother. I don't really know what else to say. You don't have to have to an account to use WIKI, so I committed no violation there. I can read, so there is no reason why I couldn't catch up on a discussion, which again means no violation. I just hope that in the future you can avoide making false accusations as soon as someone attempts to make rational points in a discussion. Also, please avoide poisoning the well in the future.

MLS

What specific change did I want to make? I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to get across. Grsz¹¹ 04:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"You" got rid of the colors from the conference tables and "you" deleted the standings summary. Do you honestly not remember screwing with that sentence at least 5 times before up and deleting it? I do concede that after looking back through the history, the conference tables didn't indicate qualification for other competetions, but the bar currently meant to indicate the two qualified teams doesn't really explain the information that it is trying to get across. I guess what I am trying to say is why do the colors need to be gone in the first place? Do they offend you or hurt your eyes? It just doesn't really make sense to me. Spydy13 (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed the explanation because Grant or you said it was redundant and didn't need to be there. He/you then proceeded it to remove it from past season articles (presumedly because he agreed). Grsz¹¹ 05:02, 19 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." -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)"

We have been aquitted of any wrong-doing and suggesting otherwise only futher pollutes the well. Please stop doing this, it only takes away from meaningful discussion. Spydy13 (talk) 05:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

In one opinion, which is far from the community consensus. Grsz¹¹ 05:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because you ran around spreading lies. PLEASE, can we approach this like adults. Why do you revert to these tactics any time someone tries to make an argument. I am simply trying to have a discussion about an article that has changed. Your actions are completly childish and I hope that you stop. There is no reason to get so hung about this. Spydy13 (talk) 05:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to explain that I made no changes other than that which Grant (your brother) approved of. Grsz¹¹ 05:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, your deletion of the colors is what started the edit war between you two in the first place. To suggest that he agreed is ludicrous. Spydy13 (talk) 05:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it was the colors. The colors changed on the template, nobody objected there, and Grant was warring there. I said (several times now) that Grant agreed the statement above the tables was unnecessary, and I deleted it. But see below, done. Grsz¹¹ 05:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The colors changed on the template because the guys who made the template tried to copy what was on the table. At the time those templates were made, the tables had been changed to eliminate the colors. YOU had made the changes, saying in your edit summary "so many colors to say the same thing - thats called redundant. made a break to indicate playoff position" Skotywa made his templates based on your information. Grant later revereted these changes as I previously said, but got blocked for edit-warring when you two had a back and forth. With regards to the statement, if you look back at the history, there was an obvious edit war about the summary. When Grant was blocked, you went ahead and deleted it. I don't think I can spell it out any clearer. YOU made changes to the site and those changes were not being called for. REREAD the history of the page if you do not believe me. Spydy13 (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Avoid the appearance of evil

In light of the week's events, it would behoove you and your brother if you stayed out of any discussions he is 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's arguments should be able to stand on their own. When you chime 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^Talk|_Contribs 04:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Your point is taken, but the only reason it is seen as evil is because GRSZ11 poisoned the well as soon as he possibly could. I believe it was you that made the point that all view points should be taken, regardless of how long they have followed soccer. Does that concept not apply to me? I do not consult Grant before making my posts and I see no reason why my points aren't just as valid. I am not in lock-step with Grant and particularly disagree with the way he acted in terms of edit-waring. My points have differed from Grant's if you actually read what we have said and when we do agree it is not because of nepotism, it is because the arguments make sense. There is no reason why I should not be able to voice my opinion on these and future matters. Spydy13 (talk) 05:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If you don't call being blocked a reason to not voice your opinion alongside Grant this week, then you can't be reasoned with. As I said, in light of recent events, it would be wise for you to take one for the team (family) and button your lip for a week when Grant's talking. Nevertheless, you do what you want. So far doing what you want has gotten you both in quite a brier patch. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 05:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I will be quite. But to suggest that I added nothing to the conversation is ridiculous. I would also like to point out that we were accused of sockpuppetry only because Grsz11 has a problem with Grant. I was making valid points and then Grsz11 reverted to childish behavior. I will AGAIN point out that why this account was active, it made NO attempt to edit or revert the 2009 MLS Season Article. I ONLY participated in discussion.

Please don't make attacks. Two other admins supported the sockpuppet conclusion. It's impossible to tell now, and other admins will have to decide what to do from here. I'm done with this issue, I don't have the patience to deal with it from both sides. Grsz¹¹ 05:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

This is completely unfair. Grant was only attempting to express the idea that if we were the same person, then it would be 1 v. 1 in determining consenus. This was not meant to be an admission of guilt. It was only meant to show that consensus had not been reached, so Grsz11 had no right to change the article. I thought that when you are bringing up things for change, a discussion should be had and consensus should be reached before the change is made. Also, if you look at my edit history, I brought up a new discussion topic on the Talk:Curb_Your_Enthusiasm#Title_Card_Picture article. This is an article that Grant has shown no interest in. I edited it because it is one of my favorite shows. This is a clear example of why sockpuppetry claims are ridiculous.

Actually I did see that before the block. However I saw it as a clear example of you doing one thing which appeared that way so that you can point it out once you were blocked... and voila! Nja²⁴⁷ 22:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Man, that didn't take long. Yep, I'm an evil genious. I mean seriously, why do you not extend me good faith? Spydy13 (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I will admit that per the Wikipedia:FAMILY article, I should have disclosed that I was Grant's brother. But as anyone admin would see if they looked at the first post on this page, this account was created because I knew that claims of nepotism would come and the discussion would not move forward. You will also see, that

was created a month ago, long before all these problems began to occur. I only wanted to move the discussion along because major changes had been made to an article that I frequently visit. Other than not disclosing my name, I don't really see what I have done to deserve this punishment. I thought that good faith was to be shown to all users. I don't think that I have been extended this favor.

That policy prohibits the type of behaviour exhibited, which is why this account is indefinitely blocked. Nja²⁴⁷ 22:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That policy is only meant to apply if the users have been involved in edit-warring or if they are trying to convey a false sense of consensus. Yes, we both had the same opinion, but in no way did we say that we were winning the discussion. We were only trying to delay Grsz11 from making changes before everyone could weigh in. The discussion only lasted ONE day. How is that a long enough time to discuss something? I seriously doubt that a life-time ban is prudent for this matter. Spydy13 (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That's assuming this is actually someone else's account. Even if you're telling the truth (though why did you practically say this account and Grant are the same here), the fact is both accounts were involved in an ongoing edit war, which is prohibited under policy and the sanction is indefinite blocking. One example is here, where this (ie Spydy) account edits at 12.00, then the sock master (ie Grant) edits at 13.56 to revert changes by another. I could go on further about meat puppetry as well, since your statements above establish that's also happened here too, but I won't as there's actually nothing to debate. Nja²⁴⁷ 22:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, that post was NOT an admission of guilt, just a simple way to show that consensus had not been reached. Both edits by Grant and I were made to stop changes that had not been agreed upon. As you will see here, [[1]] Grsz11 felt like he didn't needed to discuss changes before he made them. Per this, WP:EW I don't see how either I or Grant participated in edit-warring. Can you please further explain what rule I and Grant have violated?

I will close by saying that if I or Grant is banned, Grsz11 should also be banned because he has been the cause of most the recent problems. Do you admins not understand that Grsz11 is the one that should be looked at? He has trolled the MLS articles, changing things he does not understand and or does not bother to look up. For instance, on one of the MLS Standings templates, he changed the name of the New York Red Bulls because he thought that their name was Red Bull New York. This piece of information could have been learned by reading the first sentence of the article about that team. There was no need for him to change the template. He shows no willingness to discuss things like the other users viewing those articles and consistently posts angry comments, but quickly deletes them. These deletions show that he is uncivil and the fact that all the admins take his word for things is ludicrous. He has a personal vendetta against Grant and I because we have pointed out rational reasons as to why his changes are unnecssary. I would hope that an unbiased and thorough admin would look through this case again, especially after all of these points have been brought to light.

A very quick look at the talk pages would show how much I have attempted to discuss there, and how impossible you have made it. You've pointed out no rational reasons, and consensus has developed in various places that you don't agree with. You edit-warred against that consensus before. I made an edit to correct the accuracy of the article, Bobblehead and Skotywa agreed. You edit-warred to revert it, and also reverted purely non-controversial edits as well. I shouldn't have to reply to both of these accounts, and I will not comment further here. Your accusations are easily refuted simply by looking at the relevant pages, and it's best that you drop them now. I have done nothing wrong, everybody else can see that. Grsz¹¹ 21:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as you will see here Special:Contributions/Spydy13 I have only made one edit. TO ANY ARTICLE. This edit was to try try to reach consensus before changing the template. If you look at Skotywa's comments Template_talk:2009_Major_League_Soccer_season_table#Coloring, he actually wanted to WAIT a few days before making any futher edits. Bobblehead weighed in ONCE, that doesn't give you free reign to make changes. Discussion should not last ten seconds. There is no reason why the change needed to be made yesterday, considering that is when the vast majority of discussion happened. Have you never heard of the idea that patience is a virtue? Please, pratice some. And by the way, you ""WILL"" respond to both talk pages, because we are TWO people. Well, I guess you don't have to look at the pages, but that would imply that you were NOT a troll. Spydy13 (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)