User talk:RooMorgue

Talkback

Hello, RooMorgue. You have new messages at Talk:Inanimate Alice.
Message added 11:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for a period of indefinite for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RooMorgue. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I have only one Wikipedia user account, RooMorgue. I am not associated with Literacyadvisor or FriendofAlice of any other account here. The person using multiple user accounts, created and then abandoned, and who is a sockpuppet and meatpuppet is DrSandOp BradfieldCo EdTechUSA and (perhaps others?); this person inserted content promoting her own contribution (paid) to Inanimate Alice, including "game assets" with a link to her website, Mez Breeze Design. This has been my first venture into Wikipedia, with an attempt to fill out and complete an entry that was deemed "Class C," missing core content that was created by the owners of the property (not me). I admit to trying to learn the rules as I went. I believe I followed them, correcting a few mistakes. I believe that the "block" attempt was a personal attack and, in fact a type of bullying, on the part of Ms. Breeze. I have no future stake in the article and the property, and this experience has soured me on participating further here. RooMorgue (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)RooMorgue[reply]

Accept reason:

Please see below.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat sympathetic here. I had figured out that paid editor group 1 (you) and paid group 2 were at odds with the latter trying to off the former. I handled both groups within the case named after you. I didn't believe the BS that your opposition were trying. I also kept notes. You stated, "I have done some freelance work in the past, as an independent contractor, some of which is already included in the entry (I did expand and update) but not in the majority of the content that I added." <== This is the primary reason that you are blocked. You never declared a COI anywhere (see Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure)...nor do you appear to be operating a general account. Your first contrib was August 30 with this account which doesn't jive with your statement above about having done work in the past. What other account(s) did you use? Coincidentally, you used your IP to make this edit which is IP socking to restore your original edit. You were frustrated with the edit-warring socks in camp 2 and decided to use the IP.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Berean Hunter Not quite all correct, but I appreciate your response and attempts to sort things out. I am new at this, utterly (and, as I mentioned, quite discouraged from contributing anything, anywhere, feeling quite bullied). I simply forgot to log in a couple of times, nothing more to that. I've been very up front here, perhaps naively, but the fact is that I only have one user account, RooMorgue, and you've blocked users whom I don't know. Yep, I've done some freelance work for Inanimate Alice in the past (no longer affiliated), and so will refrain from adding anything (now that I know the rules), but my heart was in the right place. The content I added is legitimate, with links to neutral references, resources, articles, and to the content itself in external—all part of an integrated into Inanimate Alice's storyworld. It's a shame to lose it, especially simple facts like the episodes translated into multiiple languages and the language journals created by "Alice."

The other content, by literacyadviser and friendofalice was deleted, too. That should be undone, as they are not me.

DrSandOps, EdTechUSA (not a teacher, not an American) and BradfieldCo (?) is a current contributor to Inanimate Alice, paid, providing "game assets" for episode 6, as she added (with a link to her home page). She does have an editorial and financial stake, looking forward. She threw stones in a glass house.

I'm hoping some Alice fans and supporters will restore the factual content. RooMorgue (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)RooMorgue[reply]

"Your first contrib was August 30 with this account which doesn't jive with your statement above about having done work in the past. What other account(s) did you use?" No, no, I didn't mean Wikipedia, I meant Inanimate Alice. I'm an independent contractor and, as I disclosed, Bradfield Company is a former client. RooMorgue is my first and only foray into this zoo. And last. RooMorgue (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)RooMorgue[reply]

I'm unblocking you. Sometimes we have to sort things out and as you can see, some of the claims are clearly lies like those of your accusers. Please try to avoid inline external linking so much. I removed much of this because it is against the linking guidelines and begins to look like promotions by SEOs. Having said that, I was trying to make the article conform to policies and guidelines but not an editor there. I'm sorry that you were falsely accused and had a rough time. Good luck with your future editing.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]