User talk:Ruthaylett

I certainly am I real person, not a sock puppet, and can provide plenty of evidence. See my academic webpages at http://macs.hw.ac.uk/~ruth for a Strat and I can add others if you want them. Ruthaylett (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get through to those webpages right now, but that's not the point—for purposes of this request I will assume that you are a real person. However ... according to the SPI you and the other blocked accounts were, if not sockpuppets, then

First you say I am not a real person and now that it doesn't matter if I am. Surprised this becomes about me and not the inaccuracy of the comments I was originally referring to: I had assumed that you guys do care about accuracy. And to be accurate: I know Adams a little - met him a couple of times at conferences, and have papers in related fields, so know his work: see my papers listed at https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=qxC_AUAAAAAJ&hl=en for work in serious games and interactive narrative. Does this disqualify me from commenting? Because I know enough to correct inaccuracies? 'Meat puppet' suggests you do not think I have a mind of my own, so feels a little like personal abuse. Banning me from wikipedia editing does not change my life: I edit infrequently but I do have expertise that would be useful to it and my impression is that you already have too few women contributors. So maybe this would be more your loss than mine in the end. But my real point is that you should correct the original comments rather than shooting the messengers. Ruthaylett (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)' [reply]

None of this is relevant to the reason for the block, sock/meat puppetry. We have no way of knowing who is sitting at the computer, so we must treat all the accounts involved as if they are operated by the same person. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So say I accused YOU ‪331dot of being a sock puppet - could you disprove it? We all know it is very hard to know who is behind an online handle. However, as I am an AI academic I can tell you how to do it: Turing tackles it in his famous test. You ask for information only the real person can provide. This isn't hard in my case - Adams is a man, I am a woman (Turing was trying to distinguish these in his original idea); moreover Adams comes from the US and it seems is working in Sweden, I am British and working at Heriot-Watt in Edinburgh, UK, as you can see from my Uni web pages cited earlier.In addition, I am apparently famous because I have a famous son, Owen Jones. I have just jointly authored a book, see https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/living-robots on robots as well. So I can certainly provide information you wouldn't get if I was actually Adams in disguise. I have to add that I set this user up in 2008 (you can check I am sure), and I am not in the habit of lending my usernames or passwords out. So Adams would have had to be prescient by nearly 15 years for this account to be his. It does look as if maybe you don't really want to establish the truth because shooting the messenger is so much easier? An irony, as I am sufficiently familiar with Adams and his work to make that page rather better and less like a CV. The problem you guys have is precisely that it is outside your fields and so it is much easier to just zap it. Ruthaylett (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedurally declined, let us concentrate on the unblock request below, which has much better chances to be accepted.Ymblanter (talk) 06:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for messing up my webpage reference, which as you say is http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~ruth. Apologies too for getting involved in something that turned out to be contentious: I wrongly assumed my addition to the delete discussion on the Adams page would be helpful when it clearly did not pan out that way. I have learned something from this and will certainly not get involved in any talk pages like this again, whatever I think I might add. So you could consider me duly warned, and hopefully can accept that I not in fact a sock puppet but a real person. I had been hoping to add an extra person to the Aylett family of Virginia entry at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aylett_family_of_Virginia (Patrick Henry Aylett) with suitable citation, and if you could remove my block I will happily go away and do this. My relationship to Adams btw is that of an academic in the same field - his ideas on interactive digital narrative are related to Emergent Narrative, an idea I formulated in 1999 (see https://www.aaai.org/Papers/Symposia/Fall/1999/FS-99-01/FS99-01-014.pdf). I met him when he did an invited talk at the International Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling (ICIDS) in 2013 - see https://www.narratology.net/node/228 - which I would have cited had things not got a little heated. I did genuinely think I had things to add but I am not an experienced editor and thus have annoyed you all in ways I hadn't understood in advance. Ruthaylett (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 unblocked as shown in his note below, but forgot to add accept to the unblock template. Closing on his behalf. Swil999 (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]