User talk:GGG65

Hello, GGG65. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

GGG65 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Seriously, what's up with the user block? Although both Chris Latour and I work together in the Canadian Games industry and local post-secondary education, we are also clearly two separate people and since we both have a long history in Canadian and Ontario press in both games industry and political action simple google searches would verify this. We've been interviewed in local mass media press, radio, and television on both game industry and political topics. The fact that we are both professors at the same institution (Mohawk College, Hamilton) and game developers for some of the same projects should not be a reasonable cause for any form of block. Common interests do not the same person make. In particular, I've been editing Wikipedia since 2006 (longer, I see, than any of my "blockers" - I mean, geez!) Maybe a direct message, question, or notification would be nice before the block action was taken? After Mr Latour created the Galactic Ruler page I edited it to try to improve the quality and add more references/information, which I went to continue to do today when I discovered the block. Why would two people editing the same article even be suspicious? One of us could easily have done all the edits ourselves, but shared the work. This really makes no sense to me, it is not as if we were trying to stuff any vote or discussion, we were just both adding to the quality of the article. Yes we both have COI on BattleGoat, but again there is no attempt to hide that, I endeavor to add external references as much as possible. BattleGoat is a major Canadian Software developer in business since 2000 and shipping over half a million units in that time, so there is clear notability.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 12:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

Also, what's with the insane Block page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/GGG65/Archive - it says "Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below.", but you can't, because of the block? Seriously what is up with this system? Wikipedia was a much nicer place back in 2006.

GGG65 (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That space in the SPI is for accused parties to comment before they are blocked. Your block appeal(which I will leave for someone else to review) is your means of giving a statement on the matter. 331dot (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was blocked without notice or advance opportunity that didn't work, plus the line "Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below" shows in all cases, even when this is not a possible action. That is not just misleading but highly confusing. It took me half an hour to find out how to post the unblock request, something that is not once mentioned on the relevant page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending_yourself_against_claims - there is no hit on "user talk" at all on that page. Why not? Why mislead people and create barriers to those trying to respond to this claim??? I would also note that nothing about the block appeared in the Notices/Notifications. Isn't this something worth including in Notices? Probably somewhat more important than "your article X has been connected to Y". As you can tell, this is very frustrating for a user that has supported Wikipedia for over almost 15 years, both with editing and financially. GGG65 (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that you have been a productive editor in other areas for a long time. But, two people working in concert to promote a commercial interest is a serious problem, and that's why you were blocked. So, let me propose a solution (which I would extend to both of you); lift the block, but you agree to stay away from editing anything having to do with BattleGoat Studios. This would be implemented as a

@RoySmith: While the COI guidelines have certainly changed much since 2006 and I may have now become a wikipedia dinosaur, in my past experience the emphasis was on references, sources, verifiability, and notability. First regarding the original ban, the wikipedia definition of meatpuppetry says "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate" - there is no possible way to see there being a "debate" here. Cooperative editing building upon previous edits and adding sources can under no manner be considered "debate". The Block page points out the Chris uploaded a screen shot graphic and I then edited it, proving sockpuppetry - since my edit was to reduce its resolution and add license/use rationale, if we were the same person or similar sock puppet why wouldn't I/we just have uploaded the correct resolution and not had to edit it? How does editing to *fix* an issue at all relate to the sockpuppet or meatpuppet activity? This just doesn't make sense. Regarding BattleGoat, yes Chris and I work on BattleGoat projects and that was never hidden... but every attempt is made to source, reference, and keep neutral tone, and it was not a paid editor situation. I was also on the Hamilton Public Library board, should I remove my edits on that page? I contribute to open source projects so I should remove my edits on those project pages? We have edited past BattleGoat pages to improve references, clean up visual presentation, update old links, and correct factual errors (such as linking us to the wrong game series, etc) Your solution for the topic ban suggests that we have made article updates and edits for commercial/advertising purposes; the Galactic Ruler page was added because it is a continuation in the "Supreme Ruler Series" which has a half dozen articles on Wikipedia and dates back to 1982 (edit: note the game dates back to 1982, not the wiki articles). If the article is undercited or non-neutral that should be addressed and can be addressed using existing policies. Wikipedia has less and less editors that create pages on indie and niche topics, and maybe that is the admin's intentions now, to only focus on overwhelmingly popular topics. I agree that we should better identify any potential COI but I disagree that editing BattleGoat topics as individuals with appropriately sourced information is in violation of even the latest Wikipedia guidelines. It would be akin to asking that since I'm a Computer Science professor I shouldn't edit CS articles because I have too much subject matter expert knowledge. GGG65 (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should also lament the changes since 2006 in how editors can share their knowledge on Wikipedia - back then it was definitely "you have knowledge on this? please create an article and share!" whereas now the opposite is true, and novice editors in particular are hit over the head so hard that most never come back. Maybe it's time for me to get on my ice floe and drift off to sea... GGG65 (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]