User talk:Mattgarrepy
Unblock requested
[edit]
Mattgarrepy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was recently blocked, due to no action I have taken myself, but apparently because of the past actions of my colleagues. I feel this is unjust. I do share an IP address with my colleagues, but this is common in most companies, and shouldn't be interpreted as proof of wrongdoing on my part. Here is how this came about, as I understand it:
- My company, Solodev, had a Wikipedia article from 2007 until 2016, when it was deleted.
- Many in our company felt the deletion was inappropriate, and wanted to advocate for restoring it, and/or improve it to better meet Wikipedia's standards.
- I was not involved in that effort. I made my first edits to Wikipedia in May and June 2017. As you can see, my edits were all to the band Whiskeytown, a band I happen to like, but have no affiliation with. These edits were part of my effort to better learn how Wikipedia works.
- To be clear, I do hope to propose a better article on Solodev, with stronger sources and more neutral language than what was voted on here. However, we've learned from what my colleagues went through before, and have a much better understanding of Wikipedia's standards around conflict of interest, canvassing, single purpose accounts, and sock puppeting.
- I also did encourage Mattmclaren to request that his block be lifted, because I felt it would be helpful to express that he, and we, had absorbed the lessons from our past experience, and had committed to adhering to Wikipedia's policies in the future. He does not plan to work on the content related to Solodev further. (I'll leave any further specifics about his own actions or intentions to him.)
I think it is pretty clear that I have done nothing wrong, though I acknowledge I'm stepping into a challenging situation, due to the past enthusiasm of my colleagues and due to a previous article that did not meet Wikipedia's standards. I hope I may be given the benefit of the doubt going forward. -Mattgarrepy (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As you can see below, the CheckUser (Bbb23) does not agree with unblocking and since this is a checkuserblock, I can't unblock you. Though, I agree with Bbb23 that you shouldn't be allowed to promote your company and that seams to be your intention. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2017 (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.
- @Bbb23: Can you take a look? This explanation seems plausible. Also, there is no behavioral link. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- This is one of two accounts I blocked, both of whom acknowledge that they work for Solodev. The fact that this account edited an unrelated article does not change the stated intentions of the account. These accounts, whether they are socks or not, are here to promote the company for whom they work and, as such, are at a minimum meat puppets, which is also prohibited by policy. Let Solodev promote itself through means other than Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- User talk:Mattmclaren has relevant discussion. Just Chilling (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- This is one of two accounts I blocked, both of whom acknowledge that they work for Solodev. The fact that this account edited an unrelated article does not change the stated intentions of the account. These accounts, whether they are socks or not, are here to promote the company for whom they work and, as such, are at a minimum meat puppets, which is also prohibited by policy. Let Solodev promote itself through means other than Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Vanjagenije, thank you for the quick reply. I'd like to ask you to consider this more closely, as I think Bbb23 is making unfair and unfounded assumptions about me, and about my colleagues. I understand this is a sensitive area, so I can understand his or her reluctance -- but I believe I should have the chance to demonstrate that that we at Solodev learning to better honor Wikipedia's values and policies. I acknowledge that our learning process has been a bit messy. I have no intention to try to inject promotion or advocacy into an article; and I've worked to develop a better understanding of what that means to Wikipedians than any of us at Solodev had back in 2016. My colleagues and I use Wikipedia all the time, and we value its dedication to neutrality. My colleagues' earlier efforts may not have reflected that very well, but the reason was inexperience, not bad intentions. Before I made my account, we all looked back at the events of 2016, and we talked with experienced Wikipedians, to learn where we went wrong and how to avoid making the same mistakes. One of the main things we did was decide Mattmclaren would no longer work on Solodev-related content, and that I would pick up any such efforts, so we could take a fresh start, and avoid having multiple voices from our end in the discussion. There seem to be several unreasonable outcomes from the apparent ban on any Solodev employee working on Wikipedia:
- (1) If enough new coverage comes that Solodev passes the notability threshold, it will be impossible for us to propose a new, redrafted article at Articles for Creation. (There has been some more recent coverage, and I have worked on a draft, which is substantially shorter and better referenced. It seemed to me that the statements from Joe Roe, DGG and Huon in the discussion allowed for the possibility that stronger referencing, and a more neutral narrative, might make for an acceptable article. Is it now truly impossible for us to even propose one?
- (2) If somebody else writes an article, we won't be able to comment on any factual errors or omissions on that article's talk page.
- (3) For all time, apparently, whenever somebody searches for the name of our company or our individual names, they will find big warnings that we have been blocked - a permanent blemish on our reputation that does not reflect our genuine desire to work respectfully with Wikipedia.
I hope that one of you will allow me to demonstrate that I'm ready to approach Wikipedia in a way that respects its dedication to neutrality and its justified concerns about COI. I do not want special treatment, but I'd like to have the same opportunity that any other new user has. I don't think it's fair for me to be blocked when there has been no complaint against my own behavior, and when the edits I have made appear to have been unproblematic. -Mattgarrepy (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- Since I was pinged here: Nothing in my comment at the deletion discussion should be construed as a favourable opinion towards Solodev's chances of being covered by Wikipedia. Any topic imaginable could be the subject of an acceptable article with "stronger referencing" and "a more neutral narrative"; that's not an endorsement. A quick search hasn't shown anything helpful in establishing that Solodev is any closer to meeting our notability standards. Huon (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- No misunderstanding, Huon -- that was how I read your comment. Thanks. -Mattgarrepy (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)